A Guest Posting by Yannick Clément
First, I would like to address the question of the possible presence of blood in the area located between the 2 head images on the Shroud. This has recently been asked by a blogger and it’s an interesting question. On that subject, here’s what can we find about that in the important study of the UV fluorescent photographs of the Shroud done by Miller and Pellicori of STURP:
“At C-D by 11-12 a SMUDGE RESEMBLING BLOOD is visible between the head images.” Note: This code comes from a graph they drew over the Shroud and this particular location is found between the 2 head images. I have looked at the Shroud Scope of Mario Latendresse to find this possible smudge of blood but I’m not sure at all where it is located. Some spots look a bit like bloodstains but, by experience, I know that those can well be weak scorches instead (those two items on the Shroud are showing a coloration under normal light that is nearly the same)… It would be nice to check the original UV fluorescent photos of Miller and Pellicori to locate this stain!
This is the ONLY possible bloodstain they detected (they don’t mention any other possible bloodstains in this particular area) and, when we read correctly their report, these researchers were not even sure that this stain was really composed of blood. In such a context, it is evident that it would need a chemical investigation by a blood expert through a sampling of this particular area to know if some blood is present there or not. I think the most prudent conclusion to draw from this is to assume that there is no confirmed bloodstain between the head images, at least for the moment.
On the other hand, if it could be confirm that this stain is composed of blood, this would probably be the only blood smudge that exist on the Shroud and I think it is truly possible that this could have happened at the time the body was placed inside the Shroud (probably in a central place inside the tomb) or during the transfer of the enshrouded body from a central place of the tomb to his final resting place (probably a stone bench carved inside a wall of the tomb). This would highly suggest that at least some blood clots were still partially humid at the time the body reached the tomb or were able to get re-humidified before the body reached the tomb…
Personally, I think Mario Latendresse’s hypothesis to explain the absence of a body image of the back of the head is still the most likely because it is the most simple and rational we can find, which is to assume that, at the moment of the image formation, the Shroud was loosely draped over the body (most probably without the use of linen strips to bind it around the body) and consequently, for this particular area of the top of the head, the cloth was not in direct-contact with the body at a distance that was far enough to prevent the formation of an image.
Such a hypothesis is consistent with Mr. Latendresse’s own conclusion versus the most probable configuration of the Shroud over the Shroud man’s body (link: http://sindonology.org/papers/latendresse2005a.pdf) and it is also consistent with a possible total absence of bloodstain in the area between the head images. And even if the potential smudge of blood detected by Miller and Pellicori would be confirmed one day as really being made of blood, the fact that such a stain could have well been caused by the enshrouding of the Shroud man or by the short transfer of his enshrouded body to a final resting place would not allow us to discard the hypothesis proposed by Mr. Latendresse.
And since Jackson et al. from STURP have conclude that no image was able to form at more than 3.7 cm from the body, then it is logical to assume that the cloth was probably located at 4 cm or more away from the top of the head. But here, we must be prudent since we still don’t know the exact mechanism that lead to the image formation and it is still possible that such a process was not able to work laterally (or if it was, it is possible that it was only working if there would have been a direct-contact between the cloth and the lateral parts of the body, including the top of the head).
Nevertheless, there is still one thing that bugs me a bit with this explanation and it is the probable position of the head, which seemed to have been bent toward the chest (which is the probable position it had at the time of the Shroud man’s death on the cross). Because of this, I think it’s a bit harder to believe the cloth would have been located away from the top of the head at the time of the image formation in the context of a shroud loosely draped over the body. To learn more about this, I think Mario Latendresse or someone else should try some cloth’s configuration experiments that would consider the most probable position of the Shroud man’s head, which appears to have been bent toward the chest, and see if some loose configuration of the cloth over such a head bent toward the chest can force it to be located at some distance from the top of the head (which is not necessarily 4 cm or more if the image formation process was mainly working in a radial way (mainly straight up and down from the body)). Note: In my opinion, I don’t think if that was the case, this would necessarily discard any natural process for image formation, especially if the energy transfer was not 100% radial.
To me, in the context of a bend head toward the chest, the only way Mario or someone else could obtain a configuration that would force the cloth to be located at some distance from the top of the head (not necessarily at 4 or more cm but at least not in direct-contact with it) is to assume the Shroud was somewhat stiff at the time of the burial of the Shroud man.
Note: Of course, this stiffness of the cloth would have been lost over the years, since it is pretty evident that the actual Shroud is not stiff at all. Such a lost could have been caused by the Shroud being kept in a damp place for some time at an unknown moment during its long history.
And you know what? This hypothesis of a stiff cloth at the time of the burial is truly possible! In fact, this had been proposed by German from STURP and was accepted as a true possibility by Rogers and Schwalbe in their STURP paper. Here what they wrote about that: “German proposed a model to account for this (note: the density gradation of the image) by postulating the Shroud as originally somewhat stiff either from pressing or possibly starching.”
Important note: If that was really the case and the original Shroud was fairly stiff because of starching (note: In Antiquity, starch was often put on the warp threads to protect them during the weaving of the cloth), this would have represented a very good context for the presence of a layer of starch (among other impurities) as proposed by Rogers later on to explain the chromophore of the image and the ultra-superficiality of the image. In fact, Rogers assumed that most of the thin layer of impurities was composed of starch that was left on the top surface of the cloth after his washing in saponaria and drying in open air, which was an operation done in Antiquity to remove most of the starch in order to render the cloth more supple. In the case of the Shroud, it is possible to assume that this washing operation would not have removed all the stiffness of the cloth after the weaving.
Of course, all I said here is hypothetical and theoretical. More researches need to be done in order to find what is the most probable answer for the lack of an image of the top of the head on the Shroud. Nevertheless, I hope that what I have exposed here can become the start of a new reflection for some people, especially those involved in Shroud research like Mario Latendresse.
In sum, the two important factors I would like those researchers to keep in mind (which are two things that are rarely consider, so it seem) when it’s time to evaluate what was the most probable configuration of the Shroud over the dead body are 1- The possibility that the original cloth was somewhat stiff. And 2- The most probable fact that the Shroud man’s head was bend toward the chest at the time of the image formation.
For me, those 2 important factors could well have played a huge role in the kind of image that have been formed in the two head regions (front and back), as well as possibly playing a huge role also to prevent the formation of an image of the top of the head. Of course, other potentially good solutions other than the one proposed by Mr. Latendresse the other day exists to explain this absence of an image there (like the idea of a second smaller cloth that could have been placed on top of the head of the Shroud man and inside the main Shroud during the burial procedure), but I still prefer the hypothesis of Mr. Latendresse, at least for the moment. Maybe some more researches on the most probable Shroud configuration at the time of the image formation could change my mind… Who knows? One thing’s for sure (and I’m sure Mr. Latendresse will agree with me because he already planed to do so): More research need to be done in that particular field of sindonology.
Last comment concerning those future researches: It would be nice to see, for the very first time, a researcher trying to determine what could have been the most likely configuration of the Shroud in the half portion of the cloth where we see the dorsal image. SUCH AN INVESTIGATION HAS NEVER BEEN DONE, NOT EVEN BY JACKSON AND HIS TEAM DURING THE STURP DAYS!
To my knowledge, the only researchers who have studied this question (but only in theory) are the Italian nuclear physicists Fazio and Mandaglio, who came to the conclusion in their paper entitled “Does an Iz correlation exists for the back-part of the Shroud body image?” (link: http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802005) that “the attenuation effects are different in the formation of the back and front images.” In other words, for those 2 scientists, in the back region, the image formation was not able to colored fibers that were located as far as it was probably the case for the front side of the body (which have been estimated at 3.7 cm by Jackson and his team) and the reason why it is so is the possible presence of burial ointments in greater quantity, which would have created a sort of wall that would have prevent the image formation process (natural in their mind) to color fibers located at 3 or 4 cm from the body as it was probably the case on the front side of the body (if Jackson’s conclusion is correct). Personally, I disagree with such a conclusion (even if I really respect the work of those 2 scientists) because of the investigation done by Ray Rogers who conclude that there was probably no burial ointment present on the Shroud at the time of the image formation. I’ve done some personal exchange with Fazio about Rogers’ conclusion and he defend his conclusion by saying that it is possible that all the burial ointments that were present on the Shroud have been lost over time (note that this is the same hypothesis that was proposed by Pellicori back in the STURP days). Personally, I have a very hard time to buy such a hypothesis and prefer to think, like Rogers, that if no burial ointments have been found on the Shroud, it is most probably because none have been used during the burial of the Shroud man! If we use Occam’s razor principle with honesty, this is by far the most simple explanation.
And contrary to the conclusion of Fazio and Mandaglio, I think the most rational answer that exist to explain the difference in the maximal distance in which the image formation was able to color a fiber between the front and the back side is the probable fact that there was a smaller amount of energy (still undetermined) that have been transferred from the backside of the corpse to the back region of the cloth than what have been the case from the front side of the body to the front region of the Shroud. And if my idea could be scientifically confirmed one day, this would certainly represent a data that would push strongly in favor of an image formation that was natural and very mild (even milder under the body than what was the case over the body), especially if it involved a release by the corpse of post-mortem gases (Rogers) and/or of free radicals (Mills) and/or of lactic acid molecules (DeSalvo)… But of course, we’re not there yet.
Yannick Clément, Louiseville, Québec, Canada
Good posting, Yannick. Much to ponder indeed.
Thank you. I just hope some Shroud researchers will read this and reflect…
I can agree with the possibility that there may be a blood smudge in the water mark area between the two head images, and the likelihood that there was some starching of the cloth.
However I cannot agree that there was a gap of at least 3.7cm between the top of head and the cloth, and it is not an adequate explanation of the lack of top of head image. Hugh Farey gives a very good explanation of why this is so. See the posting “Top of Head Puzzle” of 16 January and his Comment #15 there. Hugh writes:
“Assuming that the bottom edges of the line of bloodstains along the back of the head correspond roughly to the level of the inion of the external occipital protuberance, there is a distance of about 38cm between there and the bridge of the nose, which corresponds well to the same distance on my own head. In other words, the image which is visible is consistent with a cloth wrapped tightly over the head from nose to occipital protuberance, and possibly a cloth about 15cm wide underneath the shroud and tied around the top of the head to account for the lack of image all the way.”
I calculate that for there to be a gap of at least 3.7cm, the ventral and dorsal images must be separated by not less than an additional 6cm, which would be easily detected on the Shroudscope images. The measurements and calculations would be well within cartographer Yannick’s ability to confirm. Hint: Assume the path over the head approximates to a semi-ellipse. Then for an additional gap of distance ‘h’ at the top of the head, the formula for the additional separation approximates to pi x h / 2. Additional hint: Two bands encircle the globe at the equator; the second band is placed at a distance 1m above the first. What is the difference in length of the two bands? Answer – 6.28m.
The absence of an image at the top of the head can only be explained by an intervening cloth such as a type of cap – check Cap of Cahors!
Read again more carefully this part of my text please: “But here, we must be prudent (about the idea that the cloth must have been located at 3.7 cm or more from the top of the head in order that no image could get formed) since we still don’t know the exact mechanism that lead to the image formation and it is still possible that such a process was not able to work laterally (or if it was, it is possible that it was only working if there would have been a direct-contact between the cloth and the lateral parts of the body, including the top of the head).”
Along with this other part: “To learn more about this, I think Mario Latendresse or someone else should try some cloth’s configuration experiments that would consider the most probable position of the Shroud man’s head, which appears to have been bent toward the chest, and see if some loose configuration of the cloth over such a head bent toward the chest can force it to be located at some distance from the top of the head (which is not necessarily 4 cm or more if the image formation process was mainly working in a radial way (mainly straight up and down from the body)). Note: In my opinion, I don’t think if that was the case, this would necessarily discard any natural process for image formation, especially if the energy transfer was not 100% radial.”
Summary of what I said: We still don’t know the exact image formation mechanism and because of this, we still don’t know if such process was able to work laterally, especially in areas where there were no direct cloth-body contact. And if this unknown mechanism was not able to produce an image when the cloth was located away from the lateral parts of the body (even by just maybe 1 cm or less – who knows?), then the hypothesis of Mr. Latendresse is still plausible in regard of the dimension of the gap that exist between the 2 head images on the Shroud.
I would like to comment this quote: “The absence of an image at the top of the head can only be explained by an intervening cloth such as a type of cap – check Cap of Cahors!”
Comment: This is a conclusion way too drastic in the present case… We’re dealing here with a complex question and, because of what I said about the fact that we still don’t know for sure what was the mechanism that formed the image, there’s still some possibilities left open, such as the one proposed by Mario Latendresse that I exposed in my post (who studied that question much more in deep than me or you and, unlike you and me, is qualified to do so).
Anyway, those things are not what was at the heart of my post. Here’s the most important thing to note: “In sum, the two important factors I would like those researchers to keep in mind (which are two things that are rarely consider, so it seem) when it’s time to evaluate what was the most probable configuration of the Shroud over the dead body are 1- The possibility that the original cloth was somewhat stiff. And 2- The most probable fact that the Shroud man’s head was bend toward the chest at the time of the image formation.”
I admit that you touched an interesting question : the original stiffness of ancient linen and then the plies on linen sheet that we can observe under the Head should be investigated
in a more exact manner (… instead the important restore operation of 2002 was conducted in a rough manner [for this question and other interesting “little problems”] …).
In the past I received a sample (linen) treated with myrrh and aloe. But I have not controlled in a careful manner this sample … I simply remember the stiffeness of that sample in comparison with “nornal linen” (here I refer to linen samples by Piero Vercelli).
So …
Starching and wrinkling experiments (and observations on shrivelled aspect of linen) are the works necessary in order to understand the issue in a more exact manner (with comparisons).
There is also a question connected with starched linen that I never read in papers. Here the terms of the problem : the bloodstains, the different level of starching and the colorimetric evaluations based on differences of color (= delta E)… and see also : the experiments about
the shape of bloodstains as connected to the level of starching (here the question written in other words : banding phenomenon and intensity of bloodstains).
As you can easily see these are works (of precision) and no person want to work on less important things …
All the people (included myself) want to easily reach fame and clamour !
Instead little works are discarded as useless …
Now, let me ask to you :
Where is the other (ancient) example for starch put on warp threads to protect them during the weaving ?
This is only the Vulgata …
I remember the past river of words that flowed on that question…
So, IMO, in your message (or document) you wrote too hastily on that question …
— —
In any case, in my opinion, we have to investigate the exact nature of the plies in the throat area (I am speaking about the Shroud area where we can see the Image of throat area).
I hope you have understood this “long” message …
See also : the question of historialc plies (and the past restore operation in 2002 …).
We have to use the advanced tools (Raman spectroscopy and SPM techniques : AFM, CFM and SNOM) in order to test the linen sheet avoiding the destructions.
Using the mechanical tests (see also : AFM three-bending point test, etc.) we can be more precise about the exact stiffness value … and then we have to compile the useful
comparative tables about the results …
In sum, what I just said in my previous comment to Daveb can be summarize like this : If the Shroud was not in direct-contact with the top of the head (even by just 1 cm or less of distance) and if the image formation process was not able to produce any image laterally (except maybe if there would have been a direct-contact between the cloth and some lateral parts of the body), then the hypothesis of Mr. Latendresse would still be plausible. And as I said in my guess post, other solutions (like the presence of a small cloth on-top of the head) is still another possible solution, but presently, I still think the one proposed by Mr. Latendresse is the most logical because we don’t have any ancient reference for the use, in Jewish burials, of that kind of cloth that would just cover the top of the head. The cap of Cahors is far from being proven genuine and I don’t think there is any ancient reference in old Jewish texts to confirm the use of that kind of cloth during a Jewish burial… I can’t be wrong here but I don’t remember having seen any credible reference (or archaeological finding) that would support the use of that kind of cloth (which is different from a simple strip of linen that could have been used to keep the mouth of the dead closed).
Instead of reading this “other solutions (like the presence of a small cloth on-top of the head) is still another possible solution”, you should read this: “there are other things (like the presence of a small cloth on-top of the head) that can be considered as a pontentially valid solutions.”
Sorry, I just wrote the previous post too rapidly…
It is irrelevant whether the head is tilted forward or not. The distance between the ventral and dorsal head images demonstrates that there was no gap between the cloth and the top of the head, they were virtually in contact (unless there was an intervening cloth) with the burial cloth quite tight at the top of the head. As other body parts produced an image when in close proximity to the burial cloth, there has to be a reason why this did not happen at the top of the head. An intervening cloth seems the most likely explanation – your Occam’s razor! The only other possible explanation is that whatever caused the image did not, for some unknown reason, act through the top of the head. Perhaps whatever emanations caused this were constrained to act vertically, but I’m not entirely happy with that explanation.
How can you be certain that there was no gap? You know for sure the size of Jesus’ head or what?
When I say « the size of Jesus’ head », I mean the length of the top of his head… I think it’s impossible to be absolutely certain that the Shroud was touching the top of his head, just by looking at the length between the 2 head images. As I said previously, because we don’t know the exact mechanism that lead to the image formation, it is possible to think it wasn’t able to produce any image laterally unless the cloth would have been in direct-contact with those lateral parts of the body (and even if this was the case, it’s not even sure!). So, imagine that the Shroud was placed at 1 cm of distance from the top of the head (1 cm gap, this is not long!), how can we be certain that an image of that lateral part of the head would have been formed? As long as the exact image formation process remain unknown, I think we should leave Mr. Latendresse’s hypothesis as something truly possible in this context. I prefer to stay prudent here.
Superb response Daveb.
At this stage we can summarise possibilities assuming the “authentic” position as follows:
1. Cloth laid on top of head
2. Kippah or equivalent on top of head
3. Cloth as Jaw band brought around top of head and tied
4. Lack of imaging action through top of head
I see 3 as most likely of these options, followed by 1
Further thought, how about crown of thorns? I’ve previously dismissed this…..but…..
What if the thorns in the crown were impressed quite deeply into the head? This may have made removal (without serious messiness / bloodiness) difficult, and perhaps it was left, hence removing the shroud slightly from the head hence the lack of image?
Nice post Yannick; Matthias, I would think the crown was removed either soon after descent from the cross or kept till the body was at the tomb and then removed (to make sure lifeblood doesn’t get spilled from the oozing wounds before the body reaches the tomb). But I don’t see how they would’ve left it on Jesus head after wrapping the shroud. It was a symbol of mockery, shame and pain. I personally vote for 4, since its consistent with the totality of the image ( lack of side image anywhere else even when contact blood stains are evident and foreshortening observed on one of the arms and legs)
MikeM – I take your point on the mocking aspect, and that has been why I have considered it unlikely that the crown was left on Christ’s head. However, what do you think about the possibility the crown might have been quite embedded in Christ’s head and difficult to remove without great messiness? Most of us have probably experienced the way thorns can embed themselves in flesh quite deeply And especially as the process of washing and enshrouding Christ might by necessity have occurred in quite a rushed manner
Matthias, I understand your point but I think even if difficult they would’ve done it. Removing the nails and breaking rigor Mortis at both shoulders would’ve been difficult and messy too.
En una proyección ortogonal o “quasi” ortogonal de un cuerpo humano, como la del Hombre de la Sábana, no falta imagen. En la cabeza, que es un ovoide, la imagen está MÁS CONCENTRADA en las zonas de curvatura, minorada su intensidad por una mayor distancia.
La cabeza del Hombre de la Sábana tendría un aspecto “horroroso” si existiera imagen entre las 2 proyecciones de la cabeza (dorsal y ventral).
Carlos
How do you explain the absence of an image between the 2 heads? Do you agree with Mario Latendresse that this could simply have been caused by a certain gap existing between the top of the head and the cloth (because the Shroud would have been placed quite loose over the body) or do you think, like Daveb, that it is because of the presence of a second smaller cloth between the top of the head and the Shroud? I would like to know your opinion.
As early as 1994, I myself thought there was a cloth laid on top of head too. Now the very presence of markings left by flower heads (and other plants?) on top of the head and around, did convince me flower heads did act as a screen. This is genuine Occam’s razor since to the initiated eye (Botanist’s and Archaeocryptologist’s), there really are markings left by flowers on top and around the TS head. Reminder: I did detect and identify four flower heads on the TS face 3D reconstruction. Avinoam agreed with me for at least two of them.
To make good use of the Occam’s razor is not to be oversimplistic and totally overlook Second Temple period archaeology.
Flowers could be used in Second Temple period burials. Flower heads are currently even carved out on ossuaries, sarcophagi and even memorial/monumental tombs.
… I see no flowers …
I don’t either…but Max says flowers were used in Jewish burials, as they were in pagan ones. The crown of thorns is – as far as we know – a torture unique to Christ. I believe as Mike notes that there’s no way they left it on Jesus’ body. And as he was dead, removal – while ‘messy’ – is not going to harm the corpse. If I saw the terrible wounds left by this mocking crown, I’d be moved to replace thorns with flowers – for both symbolic reasons and the practical (smell, insect repellent, etc). It’s total conjecture, I know, but Occam’s Razor can’t always account for the poetry that is human behaviour.
“Occam’s Razor can’t always account for the poetry that is human behaviour.”
Beautifully expressed! I’ll want borrow it sometime!
good points, certainly feasible ideas.
But again I want more evidence – this time for flowers being used in second temple burial practices.
Max / anyone: any papers that might support this?
David “replacing thorns with flowers” I absolutely love that thought. I can’t see flowers (only the chrysanthemum in the Ernie photograph) but that makes sense.
Because I see that some exchange are going a bit off-track versus what was at the heart of my guess posting, I just want to remind people of this part of my text (which is what is the most important thing I wanted to point out): “In sum, the two important factors I would like those researchers to keep in mind (which are two things that are rarely consider, so it seem) when it’s time to evaluate what was the most probable configuration of the Shroud over the dead body are 1- The possibility that the original cloth was somewhat stiff. And 2- The most probable fact that the Shroud man’s head was bend toward the chest at the time of the image formation.”
Those two possible factors in link with the image formation is what I wanted to underline the most and this concern the future research that could be made (by Mr. Latendresse or someone else) in order to estimate the most probable configuration of the Shroud at the time of the image formation.
Now, for the particular problem of the gap between the 2 head images, as I said, I think the most likely explanations that we got for the moment are:
– There was a gap (which could have been maybe smaller than 4 cm) between the top of the head of the Shroud man and the Shroud, which was enough to prevent the formation of this lateral part of the body,
– There was a small cloth (or some other thin object) that was placed between the top of the head and the Shroud, which acted like a shield and prevent the formation of this lateral part of the body.
Some people talk also about the possibility of a Jaw band brought around the top of the head and tied in order to keep the mouth close, but it is very difficult for me to agree with such a hypothesis because of what we see on the Shroud and especially the image of the side of the face (there is an image there but very faint) and the loose hair. I don’t think there would have been an image of both sides of the face that would have been formed if a jaw band would have been placed in those areas. In all logic, this band would have completely prevent any image formation of the sides of the face…
Yannick your last point is a good one.
Re the idea of a small cloth on top of the head. I guess if the head was messy / gory due to the removal of the crown of thorns the idea of a small head covering cloth has merit.
And maybe this could be the head cloth referred to by John?
Some scholars have proposed that the “sudario” described by John was a jaw band but I don’t think so. Personally, I think this “sudario” folded separately from the rest of the burial cloths and which really got the attention of John was none other than the Shroud of Turin!
Personally, I still think Mario Latendresse’s hypothesis of a gap (maybe less than 4 cm) that was left between the top of the head and the Shroud, which prevent the formation of an image, is the most probable, followed by the possible presence of a small cloth that would have covered only the top of the head (but why using such a cloth? Never seen any ancient reference about that coming from ancient manuscripts that describe ancient burial procedures, especially Jewish procedures).
Yannick’s inisistence on a gap between the top of the head and the cloth, entirely ignores what has been said about this. There was no gap! For there to have been a gap of 4cm as he proposes, the ventral and dorsal images had to be separated by at least an additional 6cm. I have explained how he can check this for himself. He is a cartographer and should be able to exercise this skill to confirm what others here have also found. A cloth on the top of the head is the most likely explanation for the lack of image there. Any tilting of the head does not affect this conclusion. He can measure the distance nose to occipital protrusion on his own head and make the same comparison on Shroudscope.
Concerning the lack of side imaging, it is my understanding that Mr Latendresse believes the cloth was loosely draped as a temporary measure and the sides of the cloth were too distant there for imaging to occur. On the other hand MPH insists that the burial rite was completed and the cloth fully wrapped the body. In that case it seems to me that the only tenable explanation was that the sides of the body were packed with some of the 100 pound package brought by Nicodemus which masked the sides from the cloth.
It is still a mystery to me why the image should be a near orthogonal projection (similar to a photograph) particularly if the body was fully wrapped. That is why I suspect that there could have been some kind of vertical constraint in whatever emanations caused the image. It is just possible that this might also explain the lack of image at the top of the head.
Matthias, the head cloth mentioned in John’s gospel was in a separate place by itself, and is generally considered to have been a full head covering placed over the head to mask the gruesome death rictus during portage to the tomb. Have you ever seen a human face immediately after death? Many believe this to have been the sudarium at Oviedo which matches the Shroud face, has human blood type AB, and shows that some of the blood was shed in life. It would have been removed during the burial rite. Any cap envisaged as masking the top of the head at the time of image formation would have been a separate cloth.
The orthogonal frontal and dorsal projection of a sphere or of the ovoid one (the head for example) shows the whole surface of the sphere or of the ovoid one.
The whole head is represented in the Shroud because it is an orthogonal projection….
Image is not absent¡¡
Carlos
Yesm but why on earth is it an orthogonal projection, as if the emanations were constrained vertically? If they were chemical emanations we might expect them to be normal to the body surface, but this does not seem to be the case! If the body was lying on its back, then why is the image a virtual projection normal to a horzontal plane? I have my own suspicions as to the reason but shan’t mention them here.
And what about areas of direct contact? The concept of radiation doesn’t really apply there, unless the radiation starts from deeper inside the body, as has been suggested, not wholly convincingly, by various commenters. The problem there is that the direction of travel becomes even more confusing, as the radiation through the body would have to travel in all directions to the body’s surface, and then suddenly switch to vertical as it passed through the skin.
Chamge in refractive index? Ahem.
Quote: “If the body was lying on its back, then why is the image a virtual projection normal to a horzontal plane? I have my own suspicions as to the reason but shan’t mention them here.”
Comment: I think our friend Carlos is thinking, like you do (without expressing it) that this would mean the image was created by a burst of intense energy at the time of the Resurrection. But there’s one problem with this assumption and that’s where the most probable bending of the Shroud man’s head toward his chest become important!
Effectively, if this was the way the image was formed (i.e. a totally vertical burst of energy acting only straight up and down), we should expect to see an image of the frontal head that would be much longer than the image of the back of the head because of this most probable bending of the head toward the chest, which would have forced the frontal side of the cloth (the one that was located over the Shroud man’s body) to be in direct-contact with not only the whole upper part of the face but also most of the frontal part of the top of the head because of gravity (which would not have been the case for a good portion of the back part of the top of the head). THIS IS NOT WHAT WE SEE ON THE SHROUD where both images of the head have more or less the same dimension… I hope people will understand the reasoning I just expressed here. This is, for me, another good clue to believe the image was not created by a sudden burst of energetic radiation, and so, no matter if there was a smaller cloth placed over the head or not.
In other words, because of the most probable bending of the head toward the chest (this kind of bending as been described by experts like Barbet), if the image was caused by a burst of energy from the Resurrection that would have acted straight up and down, we should expect to see a longer portion of the head on the front part of the Shroud and an image of the backside of the head much smaller in length and so, no matter if there was a small cloth over the head or not. I repeat : this is not what we see on the Shroud…
I understand what you mean but I disagree. For what I see on the Shroud, there is definately a missing part of the top of the head. I agree that we see a portion of the upper front of the head and a portion of the upper back of the head (if Mario Latendresse’s hypothesis is correct, it’s important to note that those upper parts were probably not in direct-contact with the head at the time of the image formation because a certain gap would have been present between the top of the head and the cloth), but I do not see any image of the real top of the head, which is a much wider zone than what we see on the Shroud… I think Mario Latendresse would agree with me about that.
My previous comment concerns Carlos comment…
Quote from Daveb : “It is irrelevant whether the head is tilted forward or not.”
My comment: Because you think that the most probable bending of the head toward the chest is irrelevant for the question of the gap between the 2 head images, this proves you don’t understand most of the reflection I tried to expressed in my guess posting. Effectively, this probable bending is very important because, if it is the case and the Shroud man had his head bent forward in direction of his chest when his body was placed inside the Shroud, it is much harder to accept the idea of Mario Latendresse that the cloth would not have been in direct with a very good portion of the top of his head (especially the “frontal” portion) because of gravity UNLESS the cloth was somewhat stiff as it was considered by some members of STURP as a true possibility.
With this explanation, I hope you understand now the potentially huge implication a possible stiffness of the cloth could have had on the absence of an image between the 2 heads on the Shroud. In sum, if (the “if” is important here) no small cloth was present on top of the head of the Shroud when his body was placed inside the Shroud, the most likely explanation that would remain to explain the absence of an image between the 2 heads on the Shroud would be to think like Mr. Latendresse that the cloth was not in direct-contact with the top of the Shroud man’s head after his enshrouded body was laid in his final resting place inside the tomb. But because of the most probable bending of his head toward his chest linked with the law of gravity, we have to assume that the Shroud would have been somewhat stiff, which would have made it possible for the cloth to remain at some distance (maybe less than 4 cm, who knows?) from the major portion of the top of the Shroud man’s head (the part of the head that has not produced any image on the Shroud). In other words, what I say is this: If Mario Latendresse’s hypothesis (the one he described here on the blog recently) is correct, then we must assume that the cloth was somewhat stiff, because if not, the bending of the head would have force it to come down in direct-contact with the top of the head because of gravity.
Important note: The hypothesis of Mr. Latendresse (which is the one I still consider as the most probable but only if we think the cloth was somewhat stiff at the time of the burial of the Shroud man) can also be apply for the absence of an image of the other lateral parts of the Shroud man’s body and, once again, the possible stiffness of the cloth would certainly make such a hypothesis more realistic. And finally, if it’s true that the original Shroud was somewhat stiff, this must have been due to a remain of starch on the threads after the washing of the final cloth (most probably concentrated on the top surface of the cloth because of the final drying in open air), which would have certainly been the major substance that would have composed the thin layer of impurities proposed by Ray Rogers that would have coated most of the top surface fibers, making it possible for those fibers (and only those) to get colored by the very mild image formation process (most probably natural). In other words, the confirmation of a certain stiffness of the Shroud at the time of the image formation (I don’t know if this will ever happen) would certainly represent a good reason to think Rogers was right concerning the image chromophore
Final note: All I’ve said here is of course only hypothetical and theoretical. More researches need to be done, not only by experts like Mr. Latendresse to evaluate the most probable configuration of the Shroud at the time of the image formation, but also eventually by a chemist who could be allowed to analyze properly some non-image fibers of the Shroud in order to confirm or reject the hypothesis of Rogers concerning the image chromophore (i.e. the image would be located only in a thin layer of carbohydrate impurities mainly composed of starch, which would be concentrated on the topmost fibers of the cloth and, because of this, the entire structure of the linen fibers (including the primary cell wall of the fibers) would be free of any image color).
With all those precisions, I hope people (including Daveb) will understand better my reasoning, which lead me to write the guess posting you can read on-top of this page.
No, Yannick, daveb is correct. Whichever way a head is tilted, if the distance from brow to occiput across the top of the head on the image is the same as the same distance in real life (or death, in this case), then the image must have been in contact with the head all the way round. This is not a question of physics but of mathematics. Without knowing the purported body’s actual measurements one can certainly postulate a pad, cap or cloth over the image-free section, but any more substantial separation would have lengthened the image’s measurement beyond what we actually observe.
Have you read this recent comment of mine Hugh: http://shroudstory.com/2014/03/05/concerning-the-absence-of-an-image-of-the-top-of-the-head-on-the-shroud-of-turin-and-the-possible-presence-of-blood-in-this-area/#comment-85871
I don’t understand how you can say that daveb is correct by saying that the probable bending of the head toward the chest would not be an important factor to consider for the question of the image formation of the head images and also for the question of the most probable configuration of the Shroud when the image formed.
Your latest comment must have slid in while I was composing mine above. Again, I’m not sure I agree with you. You are supposing, I think, that if the head was titled forwards, that the top half of the shroud would be draped over the face, so the image would be the same size as the face, while the back half of the cloth would be horizontal on the bed of the tomb, so that the head, being diagonally tilted with respect to it, would produce a shorter image. So far, so good, but only if the shroud was indeed flat on the bed of the tomb, which simple measurement shows is not possible. The shroud must have enveloped the head of the man from brow to occiput without any gap, as I explained above. This means that even if his head was tilted forwards, the shroud must have followed its contours closely all the way around.
Quote: “This means that even if his head was tilted forwards, the shroud must have followed its contours closely all the way around.”
Not if the Shroud was somewhat stiff, which could certainly have created a certain gap, which could have been small but that could have been enough to prevent the formation of the image of the top of the head anyway)…
Last thing: The fact that an expert on this subject like Mario Latendresse acknowledge the possibility of a certain gap between the top of the head and the Shroud that would have caused the absence of an image represent some kind of insurance for me to believe my reasoning is not so dumb…
Summary of what I said in many comments below:
1- If Mario Latendresse’s hypothesis is correct (i.e. the absence of an image of the top of the head is possibly due to the presence of a certain gap between the top of the head and the Shroud), then we must assume the Shroud was somewhat stiff, because of the most probable bending of the head toward the chest, which would normally have caused a direct-contact of the cloth with a good portion of the top of the head (the frontal part of it) because of the law of gravity. In other words, because the head was most probably bent a little bit toward the chest, the only rational way the cloth could have stayed away of the frontal part of the top of the head is to assume it was somewhat stiff.
2- Carlos assume that both image are due to a burst of energy coming from the Resurrection that only acted straight up and down and that the Shroud was in direct-contact with most of the head (including the top of the head). But if this scenario was true, I think we should expect to see an image of frontal head that would be longer than the dorsal one because of the most probable bending of the head toward the chest, which would have forced the frontal part of the Shroud to cover a major portion of the top of the head. Also, because of this probable bending of the head toward the chest, I think the gap between the 2 head images would have been much thinner than what we see on the Shroud, if Carlos scenario was right. In other words, I think Carlos scenario should be discarded if the bending of the head toward the chest is correct and the Shroud man’s body was not forming a completely straight horizontal plane.
Hugh, just too bad you cannot even recognize a plain daisy in 3D when you see one on the Turin Shroud face ! BW did you ever take a very good look at Tamburelli’s 3D reconstruction? Have you ever asked a botanist wrtht her/his salt to take a look at Tambrelli’s 3D and give yo her/his opinion? Do you really think you just cannot be the victim of a a negative pareidolia?
Yup. That’s what I think; I’m not the victim of negative pareidola, and there really aren’t any flowers on the shroud at all. I could be wrong, of course, but so far, I’m just not convinced.
The question was did you REALLY take a very good look at Tamburellis’s 3D reconstruction? Could you honestly answer, please?
I did take a vey good look and did detect 4 flower heads. I sent my findings to Israeli botanist Avinoam Danin. He confimed the presence of at least two flower head on the TS face 3D reconstruction.
Do you really think you have an eye for floral forms. I very much doubt it or ùost likely you have not the right eidomatic document to realy see them. Hence you could be the victim of” I think I don’t sees” (as a pareidolia can work both ways,don’t you ever forget).
Additional reminders for Hugh:
– 3D/digital squeeze and raking light are needed to really/more clearly see floral forms on and around the TS man’s head.
– Yeshua was buried in a GARDEN cave-tomb.
– Flower heads and and bouquets were used in Second Temple period burials.
Hugh, how long will you overlook these data?
Truly sorry, Max, but after intensive scrutiny of all the postulated flower images, I do not believe they are really there. Also I have no evidence that flowers formed any part of a first century Jewish burial; have you?
Hugh,
Could you please do your homework before passing comment, please? Flowers were found in Second Temple ossuaries. More or less stylized flower heads are also carved out in stone ossuaries, sarcophagi and memorial tombs(see e.g. Hachlili’s book on Second Temple period burial rites and customs.
A burst of radiation may have been the cause of image formation, but it is not a view I particularly favour. Nevertheless the image is a near orthogonal projection for some nexplicable reason. I’m inclined to favour some type of chemical reaction, even somewhat along the lines of Rogers or for that matter Vignon, and believe that there has been insufficient experimentation to test these fully. It is possible that gravity may have had a part in this but it is a weak force in respect of vapours. The earthquake might have had something to do with constraining the emanations to the vertical, such as variations in the electric and magnetic fields and possibly radon emission. Otherwise it is necessary to have recourse to the miraculous.
I am disappointed that cartographer Yannick does not seem to have followed up mine and Hugh’s suggestion of measuring the nose to occipital measurements, as I believe that this would soon convince him that there can be no gap between the top of the head and the burial cloth, regardless of head tilt. We must all be extremely grateful to Mario Latendresse for his wonderful Shroudscope on the web, but I feel sure that if Mario checked the measurements described he would also see that there can be no gap. The separation of ventral and dorsal images needs to be extended by at least an additional 6cm to produce the 4cm gap required for a lack of top of head image.
Quote: “We must all be extremely grateful to Mario Latendresse for his wonderful Shroudscope on the web, but I feel sure that if Mario checked the measurements described he would also see that there can be no gap. The separation of ventral and dorsal images needs to be extended by at least an additional 6cm to produce the 4cm gap required for a lack of top of head image.”
I would like to hear Mario’s opinion about that. He studied this question in dept over the years. Do you really believe he never did some measurements? Seriously… So, if he did some and came out with the idea that a gap was possible, I tend to listen.
And one thing you seem to neglect: The Shroud image has no definite borders and his located on a linen cloth that can move a bit depending of many factors! How can we be certain of the real length of any parts of the Shroud man?
Another thing we must keep in mind: From what I see on the Shroud, it’s pretty evident that a portion of the top of the head have been able to get on the cloth (what I call the upper frontal part of the head and the upper dorsal part of the head, which were imprinted on the Shroud, even though they were possibly not in direct contact with the cloth).
To me, the only part that is totally missing is the extreme top of the head, which certainly do not measure a long distance (and which is most probably less than the gap that exist between the two head images). Because of this, I still think the absence of an image of the extreme top of the head can be explain by the possible configuration of the Shroud that would have caused a certain gap between the cloth and that part of the head, but ONLY IF THE CLOTH WAS SOMEWHAT STIFF. Or else, because of the bending of the head toward the chest linked with gravity, there’s no doubt in my mind that the cloth would have come in direct-contact with at least a major part of the extreme top of the head.
Correction: you should read: “…and IT IS located on a linen cloth that can move a bit depending of many factors!” Sorry.
I give up! Just measure it yourself!
I agree. Yannick’s dogmatic stubborness is most frustrating at times. I measured and agree with Hugh / Daveb
I think actually we all agree with ourselves. There is no doubt among any of us that there is no continuous image from the front to the back of the head. Its non-appearance could be caused either by a lack of image-mechanism in that area, or by some form of intervention, material or empty space so that it didn’t work. If the blockage was thin it would be consistent with the measured distance. The orientation of the head is irrelevant though.
A cartographer who will not / cannot make two simple measurements and draw the only logical conclusion possible. Strange! Perhaps he left his Occam’s razor in the bathroom cabinet!
And what about an expert in mathematic who studied this question much more in deep than you and me and came up with the conclusion that it is truly possible that the absence of an image of the extreme top of the head have been caused simply by the fact the cloth was located away from this extreme top of the head?
I’m talking about Mario Latendresse of course. Here’s what he wrote on this blog on January 16, 2014: “I would also add that the lack of side images do not need a complex explanation. IT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE DISTANCE OF THE CLOTH TO THE SIDES OF THE BODY. That is, from the assumption that the imprinted image has recorded the cloth/body distance, and the body is loosely covered by the cloth, the distance of the sides of the body are too far away to be recorded at all on the Shroud. This does not preclude the possible existence of a cap (Cahors?) to be on the head, but THAT WOULD NOT BE NEEDED TO EXPLAIN THE LACK OF IMAGE COMING FROM THE TOP OF THE HEAD.” (link: http://shroudstory.com/2014/01/15/top-of-head-puzzle/#comment-73414)
And here’s another comment he wrote the same day: “Why would the cloth be necessarily in contact with the top of the head? The cloth could simply have extended a few cms away because the distance of about 23cms between the back and front images would allow it. We would need to have a very accurate knowledge of the size of the head to conclude otherwise.” (link: http://shroudstory.com/2014/01/15/top-of-head-puzzle/#comment-73420)
Note: Can’t you see that my conclusion is pretty much the same as the one expressed by Mr. Latendresse, who is an expert in mathematics who analyzed the question of the configuration of the Shroud in deep since many years. Consequently, does this mean he’s also a “dogmatic” person? This is ludicrous…
By the way, I think people didn’t read my guess posting carefully because if they would have done so, they would not consider me “dogmatic” as Matthias, Daveb and others think. Read again my guess posting: “Of course, other potentially good solutions other than the one proposed by Mr. Latendresse the other day exists to explain this absence of an image there (like the idea of a second smaller cloth that could have been placed on top of the head of the Shroud man and inside the main Shroud during the burial procedure), but I still prefer the hypothesis of Mr. Latendresse, at least for the moment.”
Sometimes, the most dogmatic people are not the one who are accused by the one who accused… Please look at yourself in the mirror guys! Take Daveb’s post for example: I’ve never seen him agree to let the door open for other possible solutions than his own! Not once! Come on! This is a complex problem and sure enough, there are more than one possible solution…
It’s the same thing concerning the question of the image formation process. People think I consider only the hypotheses involving a natural phenomenon but it’s completely wrong. Read again my paper about the bloodstains evidence (link: http://shroud.com/pdfs/n76part5.pdf) and you’ll see that I present 4 very different scenarios to explain the image formation and only one of those 4 scenarios involve some kind of natural phenomenon! Of course, this is the one I favored the most (in face of all the known data coming from the Shroud) but, nevertheless, I am honest enough to let the door open to other possibilities. And what about you?
You still haven’t made the mesurements yourself, then? I sent an email to Mario yesterday setting out the arguments (and thanking him for his marvellous Shroudscope) I don’t know if he will reply or not.
I have check out rapidly the distance between the 2 head images on Shroud Scope and came back convinced that such a distance is higher than the part of the top of the head that is missing on the Shroud and that’s why I still favored Mario Latendresse’s hypothesis over yours, even if I still left the door open for your idea to be correct after all… Nevertheless, the fact that we see on the Shroud a portion of the upper part of both sides of the head (including the hair) is a pretty good argument against your hypothesis…
And concerning Mario’s opinion, it’s nice that you asked him personally via email, but if you read carefully the quotes of Mario I gave you above, it’s evident that he thinks like me!
Final word for you Daveb: You’re just a human being like me my friend. So, what would be the problem if you’re idea should be wrong after all? It would not be the first time in history that a human being made a mistake in the analysis of one particular problem! ;-)
And if me and Mario are right, then, because of the most probable fact the head was bent toward the chest, we must assume the Shroud was somewhat stiff or else, it would have fell in direct-contact with a great portion of the top of the head because of gravity. Note: the importance of this portion that would surely have been covered directly by the Shroud just because of the gravity if the cloth would not have been stiff depend of the inclination degree of the head, which must be hard to evaluate beyond any doubt.
My 2 cents worth, when Jesus was placed onto the Shroud, after he had been lightly cleaned, the Shroud was lightly over the top of his head and placed onto the front of his body. The shroud was not “wrapped tightly or snuggly around this head. When you look at front image of his head, you can see his hair above the forehead for a few inches then the front image stops and the back image starts and all you see his hair and the image of the skull impression through the hair. it all has to do with how much pressure was exerted while placing the Shroud on his head and the front of his body. They were very respectful while putting him “in” the Shroud (or puting the Shroud around him). I hope this made sense,
Even though I don’t believe the Shroud man was washed at all after death, I think your comment make a lot of sense, particularly this part: “When you look at front image of his head, you can see his hair above the forehead for a few inches then the front image stops and the back image starts…”
This is pretty much what I tried to expressed in my last comment of yesterday: “Another thing we must keep in mind: From what I see on the Shroud, it’s pretty evident that a portion of the top of the head have been able to get on the cloth (what I call the upper frontal part of the head and the upper dorsal part of the head, which were imprinted on the Shroud, even though they were possibly not in direct contact with the cloth).
To me, the only part that is totally missing is the extreme top of the head, which certainly do not measure a long distance (and which is most probably less than the gap that exist between the two head images). Because of this, I still think the absence of an image of the extreme top of the head can be explain by the possible configuration of the Shroud that would have caused a certain gap between the cloth and that part of the head, but ONLY IF THE CLOTH WAS SOMEWHAT STIFF. Or else, because of the bending of the head toward the chest linked with gravity, there’s no doubt in my mind that the cloth would have come in direct-contact with at least a major part of the extreme top of the head.”
I think we agree about the fact that, on the Shroud, there is a portion of the top of the head that has been able to leave an image, while the extreme top of the head did not. And I think we also agree that those portions of the top of the head that we see on the Shroud probably do not come from a direct-contact transfer. I really believe Mario Latendresse would agree with me that this is a pretty good reading of what we see on the Shroud… And to me, this is a good clue to believe that if there is a missing part of the top of the head on the Shroud, it is probably because the cloth was located away enough from the extreme part of the top of the head to prevent any image formation of this area of the body. And this is probably what also happened concerning the lateral parts of the body, which are all missing on the Shroud…
Perhaps I have been too hasty in my judgement.
Some thoughts from having a look on shroudscope…
I think the top of the frontal image finishes quite high up above the forehead above the hairline.
And on the backside of the head the image similarly seems to finish quite high up.
I now think the distance between the head images might be 3-4 cms greater than it should be which could be explained by cloth lifted above some head top obhect or the slight looseness away fron full contact that Yannick suggests
I’m happy to see that Matthias is able to change his mind, which is a proof of wisdom and, more than anything else, humility.
Just a Thought!
Is it possible the Turin Shroud image formation was produced via a two-step process, similar to obtaining a sunburn at the beach? One would lie on his or her back and the front of the body would be burned and then he or she would turn over onto the stomach and the back of the body would be burned.
There would be no burning on the crown of the head or the soles of the feet as the sun’s rays beam down vertically.
Prior to Jesus leaving the tomb, His body may have produced the frontal image, while He was lying on His back and He may have turned just once, onto His stomach, to produce the dorsal image, before leaving the Shroud.
Perhaps the image on the Shroud was accomplished with a photon release that occurs with bioluminescence.
Isn’t it true Madam Flury-Lemberg, after removing the backing of the cloth, found the side-strip fluoresced?
See Article excerpt from the link below:
“Humans glow in the dark
Ultra-sensitive cameras reveal that our bodies emit tiny amounts of light that are too weak for the human eye to detect.
Bioluminescence is a side-effect of metabolic reactions within all creatures, the result of highly reactive free radicals produced through cell respiration interacting with free-floating lipids and proteins. The “excited” molecules that result can react with chemicals called fluorophores to emit photons.
Human bioluminescence has been suspected for years, but until now the cameras required to detect such dim light sources took over an hour to capture a single image and so were unable to measure the constantly fluctuating light from living creatures.”
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/17/human-bioluminescence
Thanks for the ideas, Angel, but forgive me if I can’t give them much milage! Assuming for a moment that the body lay on the shroud radiating vertically upwards, are you then suggesting that after lying on its back for a while, both the body and the shroud, together, without changing their configuration at all, mysteriously rotated, so that the body lay face down while his back radiated the dorsal image. I think this defies science and is wholly untenable. Unless, of course, you are assuming all this cavorting is part of a miracle, in which case, why bother? You don’t need any kind of radiation to make a miracle.
The bioluminescence idea is marginally more attractive, but still hopelessly insufficient to make any kind of mark on anything, even photosensitive material. Even a highly sensitive CCD camera took 20 minutes to achieve an image. The energy, and image-making potential, of the heat emitted by a body, is thousands of times greater.
Thank you for answering my post.
No, Hugh, I wasn’t suggesting the Shroud moved with the body.
Instead, in this 2-step process, Jesus was placed on His back inside the tomb, after crucifixion and enfolded in the Shroud.
So, the process to which I refer would be tantamount to going to the beach and lying on a beach towel. After receiving a sunburn on the front of the body, the person would turn and the back of the body would then be burned. The beach towel, equivalent to the Shroud, in this case, would remain stationary.
Yes, the CCD camera took 20 minutes to produce an image, but Jesus was in the tomb for 3 days. As well, the photons released in bioluminescence may be the reason why, when the backing of the cloth was removed by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, the side-strip fluoresced.
Since the linen side-strip was added at a later date, the half-life may have been longer than the older linen of the Shroud.
If Jesus was able to rise, place the folded Shroud and head napkin onto the marble slab, don His celestial/spiritual garment of bright white, prior to leaving the tomb, then He certainly would have been able to turn His body from back to front, just once.
And doesn’t laying the Shroud and the folded Sudarium on a marble slab, and exiting the tomb, also defy science? :)
Just a different slant, Hugh.
I appreciate your input.
Best,
I’m still confused, Angel. Remember the ‘burning’ is on the cloth, not the body. Start, as you suggest, with the body on its back enveloped in the shroud. Which image is formed, the one below or the one above? Let’s say the one above, by radiation upwards from the body. The layer below the body is unmarked.
Now the body turns over without disturbing the cloth. Which image is formed now? If radiation upwards is still the mechanism, then an image of the back of the body is superimposed on the one of the front which is already there. If the radiation is now downwards, then a second image of the front of the body is formed on the cloth below the body, and we would end with two frontal images, not one frontal and one dorsal.
The body lay in the shroud for a maximum time of about 36 hours; “three days” only includes a few hours of Friday afternoon and a few hours of Sunday morning.
As for the “surely Jesus could defy science” idea, this is, of course, true. In which case no scientific exploration of the image-forming mechanism is meaningful.
Here, I just intend to summarize my thoughts about the question of the absence of an image of the extreme part of the top of the head of the Shroud man and, by extension, concerning also the most probable configuration of the cloth around the body at the time of the image formation:
1- Because of the fact we see a lot of hair on both images of the head, including some hair on the upper parts of both heads, I think this represent the best clue to conclude the presence of a gap between the 2 head images was not caused by the presence of a cap or a small cloth that would have been applied on-top of the head of the Shroud man before his corpse was placed inside the Shroud but more likely because there was a certain gap between the extreme part of the top of the head and the Shroud after the burial procedure and at the time of the image formation.
2- The absence of an image of both lateral parts of the body can also have been caused by the same reason.
3- These two probable conclusions strongly suggest that no linen strips were used to tied-up the cloth firmly around the body and that the Shroud was simply placed in a pretty loose way over the corpse, which is the kind of configuration that fit the most with the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ incomplete burial. Effectively, because those who did the burial procedure on Friday knew perfectly well they had to come back on Sunday (after the Jewish Sabbath) to finish the job (which included probably a washing and an ointment of the corpse), there was no need to tied up the cloth around the body, since they knew they had to remove the corpse from inside the Shroud on Sunday to wash it and anoint it. This use of linen strips to tied-up the cloth around the body was probably in their plan, but only after the completion of the whole burial procedure on Sunday. Note: the bloodstains in the feet region can suggest that maybe some form of strapping (probably with a linen strip) have been used in that region to maintain the cloth in place around the body.
4- The absence of an image of the back of the knees on the dorsal part of the Shroud (which was confirmed by Miller and Pellicori’s analysis of their UV fluorescent photos and most probably caused by the distance existing between the still bended knees of the Shroud man and the dorsal part of the Shroud) is another data that, along with the two I just mentioned, should be enough to conclude beyond any reasonable doubt that no linen strips were used to tied-up the cloth firmly around the body (with the possible exception of the feet region),that the Shroud was simply placed in a pretty loose way over the corpse and that the dorsal part of the cloth was most probably simply resting horizontally on-top of the place were the enshrouded corpse was placed (probably a stone bench), which means the cloth was not in direct-contact with many parts of the backside of the Shroud man’s body. Note: the presence of an image of a good portion of the backside of the head (including a portion of the upper part of the top of the head) strongly suggest that, for this particular region of the body, the Shroud was not resting on the ground (i.e. stone bench) after the burial procedure and at the time of the image formation, but that it was most probably following more or less the contours of the backside of the head, which is natural in the sense that it is there that the second half of the Shroud was folded in order to cover also the frontal part of the corpse. Note: the absence of scourge marks in the upper region of the thighs in the dorsal image can also be taken as another good clue to back-up the conclusion that no linen strips were used to tied-up the cloth firmly around the body (with the possible exception of the feet region),that the Shroud was simply placed in a pretty loose way over the corpse and that the dorsal part of the cloth was most probably simply resting horizontally on-top of the place were the enshrouded corpse was placed.
5- Because of the most probable bending of the head of the Shroud toward his chest (which is, sadly, a data that doesn’t appear to have been considered by Mario Latendresse in his paper about the most probable configuration of the frontal part of the Shroud at the time of image formation), which would normally have caused the Shroud, because of gravity, to fall directly on-top of a good portion of the extreme part of the top of the head, thus causing the formation of an image (which would have logically produced a longer image of the frontal head versus the image of the back of the head), we can assume (like German of STURP, who’s idea was accepted by Rogers and Schwalbe as a real possibility) that the cloth was somewhat stiff at the time of the image formation.
6- This stiffness would have been the primary reason why there was still a certain gap between the extreme part of the top of the head and the Shroud after the burial procedure and at the time of the image formation and we can also assume the same thing concerning the probable gap that was existing between the lateral parts of the Shroud man’s body and the cloth at that moment.
Those are my personal conclusions on this subject, which came from a long reflection and lots of reading. Of course, if other data come in my way and/or if some experts on the subject show me some good clue that suggests something else, I’ll be willing to reconsider some of my conclusions. I see this as a work-in-progress… Also, I acknowledge of course that other hypotheses and conclusions can be (and have been) put forward by other people and I still left the door open to some of those (like the presence of a possible very small cap or, more probably, very small cloth resting on the extreme part of the top of the head), even though such opening is not very wide for the moment. I just wanted to summarize my own conclusions here, so that it can maybe start a new reflection in some people’s heads.
Thank you in advance to all of those (I hope this will include some Shroud researchers) who will read this summary with an OPEN-MIND!
Additional note: My conclusion about the loose configuration of the Shroud at the time of image formation (see the long comment above) means that I reject completely the hypothesis of a tight configuration, which was described by John Jackson in this BBC documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj_pxnzDLsE and also showed in other Shroud documentaries over the years.
At the same time, that means I also reject Jackson’s hypothesis concerning the possible use of the side strip to tied-up the Shroud around the corpse…
I really think there are well enough solid clues on the Shroud to reject both hypotheses.
And how do you explain the absence of a body image in the right elbow when clearly a contact blood stain is there?
I explain this by the same hypothesis I have to explain why there are some scourge marks at the back of the knees on the dorsal image while there are no body image there (this fact also come from the important study done by Miller and Pellicori of STURP concerning their UV fluorescent photos), which can be summarized like this: A change of configuration of the Shroud during the burial procedure (probably during a short transfer of the enshrouded body between a central place inside the tomb and the final resting place, which was probably a stone bench carved inside a wall of the tomb), which caused some temporary direct-contacts that were removed after the enshrouded body had been placed in his final resting place. Those temporary direct-contacts between the bloodstained corpse and some parts of the Shroud would have caused the transfer of some bloodstains on the cloth (because most if not all blood clots were humid enough to transfer on the cloth when the body reached the tomb). Finally, when the body was placed in his final resting place at the end of the burial procedure, the Shroud was probably replaced in a looser way with the result of taking the cloth away from the corpse in many places, including the back of the knees and the lateral part of the elbows, among other places like both sides of the face (i.e. removal of some manual compression that was applied during the short transfer of the enshrouded body). In those particular areas (i.e. back of the knees and the lateral part of the elbows), we can assume that the cloth was enough far of the body (possibly at 4 or more cm of distance) to prevent any image formation.
Note: Most people who studied the Shroud over the years have seemed to assume the body was placed inside the cloth directly in his final resting place, but that doesn’t make much sense since the kind of resting places that were existing inside 1st Century tombs in Jerusalem were not big enough to allow this kind of enshrouding. In all logic, the corpse must have been placed inside this long shroud elsewhere, in a place where there was enough room to operate, which can well have been a central place inside the tomb or even a clean place outside the tomb. Consequently, it is most probable that they moved this enshrouded body afterward to laid him in his final resting place, which was probably a stone bench carved inside one of the tomb walls. Such a transfer of the body, even if the distance was short, surely caused some manual compression in many places and it’s logical that some of those were later removed at the end of the burial procedure…
I’ve just had a good look on Shroudscope on a full screen rather than my mobile.
I think image / blood stains on the back of the head are evident close to the middle of the top of the head. I think the lower blood stains on the back of the head are around the middle of the back of the head or probably a bit higher, which definitely places the stains overlapping the water mark close to the centre of the top of head.
Hence I think again that Yannick might be right – the gap is larger than it should be, which could be explained by the shroud not being wrapped tightly over the top of the head, but rather some slackness leading to a gap and hence a lack of image.
Exactly! And as I said, because of the most probable bending of the head toward the chest, it is logical to think the Shroud was somewhat stiff, which would have prevent it to get in direct-contact with a good portion of the top of the head. To me, this potential stiffness of the Shroud is the most rational explanation in the case there was really a certain gap between the top of the head and the cloth. And as I also said, if I’m right, then we can assume that this stiffness of the cloth was probably caused by a remaining of starch, which is totally consistent with Ray Rogers’ hypothesis concerning the image chromophore (i.e. color residing only in a thin layer of carbohydrate impurities mainly composed of starch).
any other thoughts from Hugh / Daveb?
I’m always happy to be proven wrong, and I think I was and Yannick is right.
Hugh, Dave: you still think he’s wrong?
Yes! He hasn’t measured it yet!
Mario Latendresse has surely measure it precisely and came up with the same hypothesis as me… Considering the opinion of this expert concerning the question of Shroud configuration, why don’t you be willing to at least leave the door open for our hypothesis?
Well, I think he’s right now.
Go to Shroud Scope.
I think the image / blood stains on the back of the head extend towards the centre of the top of head (ie where a couple of blood stains overlap into the watermark area). Centre of the top of head to a point just above the hairline then only measures (at least on my head) about 12-13cm. Distance on the cloth measures about 17-18cm from my measurement.
hence discrepancy!
disagree????
I doubbt if that measurement has any significance. You need to be able to measure from a determinable point on the front of the skull to a determinable point on the back of the skull. Hair-lines and blood-stains on the water mark don’t do it. Typical measurement from bridge of nose to inion is about 36cm. I’m not confident you have a grasp on the issue and I’m sorry but I did not appoint you as arbitrator. I’ve said all I wish to say on this topic for now.
What a grumpy old man…so much for an open scientific mind…Very very disappointing as you are someone whose views I have respected in the past but no longer.
So disappointing
Matthias of Queenstown, formerly of Adelaide and originally from windy Wellington
Some of the older statesmen on this site really act like little children…some of you guys should really be ashamed
Quote: “What a grumpy old man…”
I hope people can understand now why I reacted so hard the other day versus one comment made by Daveb…
The problem with the Shroud is that, very often, it doesn’t only imply a scientific quest but a mix of scientific quest and very personal emotions (often religious emotions related to the fear that this relic could be the work of a forger and not the real burial cloth of Christ and/or the fear that the image could have been caused by a natural process, even though this is the real burial cloth of Christ)…
By the way, I would like to hear our friend Daveb about the pretty good argument I put forward against the hypothesis of a small cap or small cloth on-top of the head, which is that there seem to be way too much hair on the Shroud image (on the front as well as on the back image, including hair that appear to be located on the upper parts of the head on both images) to believe there would have been such a cap or cloth resting between the top of the Shroud man’s head and the inner part of the Shroud (which would have prevent the formation of an image of this area). I think this is the best argument against the hypothesis Daveb defend at all cost…
The disposition of the hair is I consider a very weak argument against the presence of a head cloth merely sufficient to mask the Shroud at the crown. I prefer the more objective method of direct measurement, yet once again patiently described by Hugh below, and on whose head the measurement is 35cm. On my head the distance is 36cm, but I am known for an unusually large brain capacity, which probably makes me a big-head as well a G.O.M. What is the measurement on Yannick’s and Matthias’ heads?
A weak argument? Really? Look at the Shroud again! There is hair everywhere!!! And you want me to believe there was a cloth on-top of the head (for a reason we still don’t understand historically) that prevent only the image formation of the extreme top of the head? Seriously, I don’t think so.
And in all of thiis quite unnecessarily long thread, you have not cited a single significant measurement despite several invitations to do so. Why? Because it would immediately destroy your idea of a fold in the cloth! I repeat! I see no point in further discussion. No measurement! No talkee!
Instead of making measurements that would not be great (because I’m no expert), I prefer to rely on the opinion of an expert like Mario Latendresse who tell me it’s truly possible that there was a certain gap between the cloth and the top of the head.
One last thing: Why don’t you answer my argument about the fact that there is hair all over the place on both images (front and back), which strongly suggest that there was nothing between the Shroud and the head, because if that would have been the case, most of the hair on top of the head would not have left any image on the Shroud. This is not at all what I see…
On the frontal image, if the only hair we would see would be the long hair on both sides of the face and if there would not be any hair visible in the upper part of the back of the head on the dorsal image, I would be more incline to accept the idea of a small cap or small cloth that would have been placed on top of the head, but that’s not what I see on the Shroud where there is hair all over the place, which strongly suggest that there was absolutely no object (cap, cloth, whatever) between the Shroud and the whole head area at the time of image formation. I don’t understand why I seem to be the only one able to come to such an evident conclusion…
I’m the grumpy old man around here. I don’t want to share the title.
Hi Matthias! Do I count as an elder statesman? I’m flattered!
Anyway, I do have problems with all these measurements, as in spite of being told that the shroud has a resolution of half a centimetre or so, it is really very difficult to decide where exactly we are measuring from and to. Your own “the middle of the back of the head or probably a bit higher” is as good as one can get, in most cases, and it’s not at all obvious where that is.
Even on ones own head, the middle of the back of it is pretty difficult to define, so I’m going for a little bump called the inion, which is different for everybody, but on my head is a well defined little bump on the back of my skull. My other point of reference will be the space between my eyebrows. This distance is about 35cm, although different heads will no doubt vary by a centimetre or two. The question is, where is the inion on the shroud? If I use shroudscope to measure 35cm from the space between the eyebrows I reach aproximately the upper edges of the ring of blood trickles, where, one might suppose, the thorns of the crown jammed against the skull. If I measure to the lower edges of the trickles – another 4cm or so, then I am assuming that the ring of piercings was much higher up the crown of the head, and, perhaps oddly, that no blood flowed down the hair below the inion, which seems odd. That’s why I think the inion was in the former place, and the eyebrow-inion distance does not admit of a substantial extra flap of cloth between the two heads, although, as I have consistently maintained, it does admit of a bit of separation due to cloths, caps or something similar.
I am happy to defer the title of resident G.O.M. to Dan if that’s his preference.
However when it is others’ time in due course to become grumpy old men, I hope that they are able to find more pressing commitments and interesting topics to occupy their minds than reading interminable, incessant verbiage of self-inflated weakly-argued opinion from those with considerably less life-experience than themselves, the happy situation which I now enjoy.
Re YC’s Turin Sindon (TS)man body’s wrapping alleged ‘reconstruction’, most obviously YC is neither an archaeo(cryptoo)logist, nor an ancient bloodstain pattern analyst not even a linguist.
Most likely, shortly prior to the stiff rigid body image formation, the TS, used as moistened long inner shroud, was FIRST tightly wrapped up lengthwise around the body all covered in freshly dried blood to account for such accurate front and back haematic cartography. In other words, the TS was FIRST moulding the body front and back (even the back of the kees!), no question!
Besides,this would be totally consistent with the 3 koiné Greek words used in the Gospels to descruibe Yeshu’s body as encircled/wrapped – compressed/tightly wrapped – fastened/bound in shrouds along with spices, which could include fresh flower heads used as insect repellent.
The TS man’s dressing in shrouds needed 5-6 buriers on hasty burial (i.e. within 2 hours – 2 hours and a half with only four out of five of the core burial procedures performed:
0/the long inner buial shroud is in-soaked/moistened with (warm?)
alkaline waters
1/then it is taut in extra height on two raised stones or piles of bags of spices
2/then the in-soaked/moistened inner burial cloth is tautly wrapped lengthwise around the body stiff rigid as a wooden board
3/the latter’s ‘hills’ and ‘valleys’ front and back are manally moulded while compressed widhwise with other (dry) burial shrouds (along with spices and objects)
4/then the tightly wrapped up stiff rigid body, once placed on its right side and in extra height on the 2 raised stones or piles of bags of spices, is subjected to a ritual (myrrhic aloetic) fumigation (acting in conjunction with body hyperthermia?)in order to dry out the long inner burial shroud moulding the body front and back
5/then the compressed long inner burial shroud gradually and slightly comes unstuck from skin till it gets sort of taut again through drying out and shrinking (only first close contact AND then gradual loss of cloth-to-body contact through gradual pressure release can account for such a high definition/volumetric recording front and back of the stiff rigid body image on the TS inner side since basically the physical-chemical reaction shall have been anaerobic back and front and collimated thanks to ‘opaques’ present in desert and/or limestone dust)
6/ as a result the dried out long inner shroud is no longer tightly compressed widthwise but sort of taut again through shrinking, which implies two cloth-to-body configurations: one to account for the TS neat blood imprint and another for the high definition/volumetric body image (a fact that is curently and most curiously overlooked by both ‘fraudulists’ and ‘supernaturalists’ and even most ‘naturalists’)
7/ most likely the body, once tightly wrapped up in the shrouds (= koiné Gr. othonia), is finally encircled in a all-envelopping shroud (Heb. sovev, Jerusalem Heb.-Aram. sudara, koiné Greek soudarion, see the Kornelimunster “Sudarium” as representative or genuine relic of Yeshua’s burial)
8/ thus most likely the reaction of Maillard was interrupted via corpse fumigation. This is totally consistent with the evidence that supports a low-temperature image-colour-formation process. Or, to put it in other words, the appearance of the decomposition amines (that would otherwise slowly appear at the surface of the skin under normal circumstances during the time in the tomb)was temporarily held on.
Addendum re Second Temple period deceased body anointing with spicy oily perfumes: for visiting purpose within 3 or 7 days after death, it could be peformed either directly (the deceased’s stark naked body was then smeared with the spicy oily perfumes) or indirectly (the spicy oily perfumes were smeared on the deceased’s tightly wrapped-up body).
Since the TS Man shows no sign of decomposition, the reaction of Maillard as possible image-colour-formation process shall be ruled out whereas the presence of akaline solution (ashes and/or Jerusalem limestone dust mixed with water + ammonia contained in remoistened dry sweat)in-soaking the long inner burial cloth (aka TS)shall be favored.
The ‘fresh’ stage of decomposition often has no obvious sign beyond rigor. But the process begins once the heart stops beating. Better to say there are no signs of advancing decomposition. The alkaline solution theory…could this be tested somehow?
Or, if you really want to be more accurate, the TS shows no sign of metastatic gas emanation.
The alkaline solution theory is easily testable… and does work in conjunction with an external source of heat.
It also does work for recording pressed fresh flower heads and small copper/brass coins smeared with blood.
…no matter how faint the fresh flower heads and how tiny the coin legends and central devices can be recorded on a stretched or unstretched in-soaked 3/1 twill fabric.
How tiny here means from 0.4-0.5mm to 1.5-1.8mm image resoltution.
Schwortz got it wrong as far as Pilate-coin-smeared-with-blood resolution is concerned. Even their legend letter can be recorded on a 3/1 twill fabric.
It’s not Schwortz who deny such a ludicrous thing, it was the chief expert in imagery of STURP named Don Lynn who worked on a lot of spatial programs for NASA (among other things) and who, after analyzing the question, came up with the definitive conclusion that it is impossible for such tiny characters to imprint themselves on the kind of thread that composed the Shroud with a resolution that would be good enough to be able to read them. Do whatever you want to do with such an expert conclusion…
Actually the body image resolution is 0.5cm while the blood image (and thus any blood smeared object images) resolution is 0.4-0.5mm. Experimentally, Moroni, Rodante and myself could record Pilate coin or one Euro cent coin tiny characters on a 3/1 twill fabric providing the coin is partially smearded with blood. This is a fact. Schwortz, Lynn and Gonella got it all wrong.
Ons shall not confuse body image with object image.
…or non-image arera.
Reminder: Small thin coins were found inside dozens of Second Temple Period tombs and more than a third of them are Pilate coins. Flower heads (such as crown daisies) whether naturalistic or stylized (as “rosettes”)are carved out in stone in Second Temple period ossuaries, sarcophagi or memorial tomb facades.
Whether YC like it or not, archaeologiacally speaking, Pilate coins and fresh flower heads could have been pressed on the TS man’s face and account for image gaps.
It’s not my opinion or Barrie Schwortz’s opinion that matters but the one of an expert in imagery like Don Lynn. By the way Max, I’m affraid your own hypothesis for image formation is totally contradicted by the experiments made by Samuel Pellicori of STURP who proved that a tiny amount of burial product (and/or a gently touch of the cloth on such products) could produce a latent image on a linen cloth. Considering this fact, I wonder how the TS image wouldn’t be completely saturated if your hypothesis would be right… And how can such a hypothesis account for the ultra-superficiality of the color in every part of the image, no matter if we talk about a very dark area or a very faint one…
Shall I repeat: Actually the body image resolution is 0.5cm while the blood image (and thus any blood smeared object images) resolution is 0.4-0.5mm. Experimentally, Moroni, Rodante and myself could record Pilate coin or one Euro cent coin tiny characters on a 3/1 twill fabric in-soaked with a watery solution
providing the coin is partially smearded with blood. This is a fact. Schwortz, Lynn and Gonella got it all wrong.
Note: the study of Pellicori I just mentioned was summarized by himself in this peer-reviewed paper: Pellicori, S.F., “Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Turin,” Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 1913-1920.
Last thing: I would like Max to tell me how can he account for the fact that there is absolutely no traces of burial products that were found by Ray Rogers in his Shroud samples? Do you think like Pellicori that all those traces could have been lost with time? To me, this kind of rationality seems like a sort of “magical thinking”…
Yannick, you are totally off the mark. Have you ever heard of the atomic level and pre-mordanting?
Yannick, once you told me (after Schwortz’s recieved idea), Pilate coins featured offensive pagan symbols for Jews and just could not have been used for Yeshua’s burial. Now I would like you (and Barrie)account for the presence of Pilate coins inside a dozen of Second Temple period tombs.
Pilate coins were used in Second Temple period funerary practices.
Max, I see that you got a good memory and that our point has been considered by you seriously. The answer to your question is very simple : In Jerusalem, at the time of Christ, there were many rich families of Jews (often associated with the Saducees) who were hellenised (i.e. living in the Greak way). The Pagan coins you mentioned that were found in Jewish tombs of that period must have been found in Hellenistic Jewish tombs.
Having said that, I just want to add : Jesus was NOT an hellenistic Jew. He was a Galilean Jew from the crowd. Because of this (including the fact that his preaching was completely opposed to the Saducees philosophy), it is highly unlikely that Pagan coins were used during his hasty burial. Of course, some (like you probably) could think that Joseph of Arimatea and/or Nicodemus could have been hellenistic Jews and, therefore, could have used Pagan coins for the burial of Jesus, but this is a pretty wild assumption that, to me, should not considered as probable. We must remember that other people were present at Jesus’ burial (like John and his mother) and those people were NOT hellenistic Jews. I just don’t see those good faithful Jews allowing Joseph and/or Nicodemus to place Pagan coins over the eyes of the man they considered as the Jewish Christ…
I would like to add that studying history of mankind is very important to understand our present world because, it is a proven fact that history constantly repeats itself! Back in Jesus’ time, the superpower was Rome and, because of that, the dominant culture was the Greco-Roman culture, which was adopted by a lot of non-Roman citizen in every part of the Roman empire and today, the superpower is the USA and, because of that, many non-US citizen (among them we even count a lot of Chinese people who are the members of the next superpower that will end up one day being stronger than the USA) are fully living the american way of life right now.
Yannick, if Yeshua was not a hellinistic Judean, his buriers were! This is not a pretty wild assumption at all!
What is really a pretty wild assumption is to believe Second Temple period Judean thought like you and consider Pilate coin central device as offensive, this is just b*******!
Symbolically speaking, Pilate coin central devices were specifically designed (or ambivalent enough) to agree with both 1st c CE Judean and Roman sensibilities. You are totally off the mark (again) and just indulging in a 20th c CE received idea (again).
Of course, I mean “body image” gaps.
Archaeologically speaking, the presence of fresh (plants and?) flower heads pressed on top of the head is the best expalanation to account for the image gap of the top of the head.
Just one tiny smidgeon of actual evidence to support any of the last 15 or so posts would go such a long way to bolstering their credibility…
Hugh, I cannot do your homework.
…for you.
See for yourself as far as alkaline solution in conjunction with external source of heat theory is concerned.
..maybee you’ll then believe your own experiments…
Hugh,first learn to train your eye-and-brain coordinating system in order to really recognize e.g. a plain crown daisy in 3D in Tamburelli’s 3D TS face reconstruction without being the victim of a negative or positive paraeidolia.
I’m not asking for you do my homework, Max, just some evidence that you have done yours.
Re my homework, I wrote a paper on the coin over eye issue in conjunction with the detection of floral images on the TS face and submitted my findings to Avinoam. He agreed for at least 2 crown daisies inflorescences I found in Tamburelli’s 3D TS face reconstruction.
I also discovered that Baima-Bollone and Balossiono grossly mistook a petalless crown daisy head for a coin on the left eyebrow
Actually, this is not that easy as even a botanist himself (like Avinoam Danin)can be at times the victim of both negative and positive pareidolia when it comes to dectect floral images around the TS head… I myself must be extracareful with pareidolia.
I should be very interested to read your paper. Perhaps it would persuade me there really are flower images. I’m sure if you email it to Dan he would pass it on. However I was thinking more about your archaeological evidence about First Century Jewish Funerary Rites. Have you a source for them?
So it is asserted that both coin and flower images can be seen on certain areas where the body image has clearly formed, but that flowers have masked the top of the head and that is the reason why the top of the head has not been imaged. Why then do we not see flower images on the burial cloth in the gap between the face and occiput if there was no separate cloth masking the top of the head from the imaging process, especially as Max asserts that the burial cloth was tightly wrapped there? Or was the layer of flowers at the top of the head made especially thicker so that the imaging process could not penetrate them? Is this at all plausible? The gap is entirely devoid of any imagery at all!
Very faint images of fresh crown daisy and rock rose heads (and maybe fresh plants too?) can be found on and around the TS face(they are best seen computer enhanced in 3D and digital squeeze as they are nearly invisible in 2D).
Dave wrote: “Why then do we not see flower images on the burial cloth in the gap between the face and occiput if there was no separate cloth masking the top of the head from the imaging process”.
Actually both Avinoam and myself can see a few floral images on the top of the head.
Are you therefore saying that you consider that there was no cloth masking the top of the head, but that the imaging process was able to penetrate the (presumably thick) layer of flowers at the top of the head to the extent that a few floral images were imprinted there? Yet in other places where you and Avinoam say there were flowers, facial / body / hair images were able to penetrate!
There was neither “penetration” nor any “thick” layer of flowers on the top of the head, just a few pressed flower heads (probably mixed with fresh plants) implying air gaps in-between hence a very faint and incomplete recording while the face ‘hills’ and ‘valleys’ were manually moulded with no air gap.
Hugh wrote: “However I was thinking more about your archaeological evidence about First Century Jewish Funerary Rites. Have you a source for them?”
Stylized crown daisy and rock roses heads can be also seen on Second Temple period ossuaries, sarcophagi and memorial tomb facades. See e.g. Hachlili’s Jewish Funerary Customas, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period, BRILL ed., 2005.
Reminder: the Giv’at ha-Mivtar ossuary held the bones of the sole crucifixion victim ever found in the Land of Israel and… a bouquet of withered flowers.
Reminder: the koine Greek word aromaton, ‘spices” used in John’s Gospel can refer to medical fresh plants and flower heads (used as insect repellent)not only to myrrh and aloe wood.
Reminder: John 19:40 reads: “So they took the body of Yeshua and fastened/bound it in shrouds along with the spices (= granulized myrrh, aloe wood + fresh plants and flowers), as is the burial custom of the Judeans.”
“Along with aloes and myhrr” doesn’t mean those products were put directly into the Shroud with the corpse. Those things could have been put in smaller cloths (acting like bags) and placed all around the enshrouded corpse (inside or outside the Shroud) just as a way to prevent bad odors when they would return to the tomb on Sunday morning. And we must also understand that those products could well have been used in a solid state (like dust) and not in a oily or liquid state.
Most likely myrrh resin mixed with aloe wood formed in solid blocks or lump shape or granulized myrrh mixed with aloe wood in small bags were packed alongside the corpse and fastened in shrouds while granulized myrrh resin was spread on the burial bench. Most likely aloe wood and granulized myrrh resin were also used to make a fumigation for tahara.
Thanks very much for the Hachlili reference. Very interesting and informative.
I see your point, Hugh.
The two-step process would not produce the dorsal image on the bottom section of the cloth, unless the rays of light from the back of His body were directed vertically downward; however, as you stated, instead it would produce two images on the front of the cloth.
Yet, strangely a second image was found on the back of the cloth and wouldn’t this verify a two-step process, similar to your hypothesis that two images would have formed on the front of the cloth?
Excerpt:
“It is now discovered by two Italian scientists this same cloth now depicts the face of a man that can be seen on the reverse side of the Shroud, and it matches the front, although much fainter. It also shows in faint detail that of a nose, eyes, hair, beard, and moustache. The hands of the man in the second image on the Shroud were also noticeable, but very weak. The shoulders or back could not be produced. In 1978, when the Shroud was examined, the backside of the cloth was not accessible because at that time, it was sewn to a backing cloth.”
http://www.allaboutarchaeology.org/second-image-on-the-shroud-of-turin-faq.htm
Anyway, it was just a passing thought.
Best,
PS. Hugh, I failed to mention, if Jesus did turn His body 180 degrees, as I suspect, while He was levitating, as introduced by Isabel Piczek in her “Event Horizon” theory, then that would explain the missing side-strip of the Shroud, since it would have torn at the seam, during the process of Jesus turning from front to back. As well, there were two missing panels that enabled Him to turn and levitate, without the pressure from the cloth (top and bottom). See paragraphs 1 and 2.
http://www.shroud.com/adler2.htm
Isabel Piczek’s “Event Horizon” theory sounds plausible, but it is my belief it occurred via a 2-step process, rather than all at once. The 2-step hypothesis would account for the missing panels, the side-strip, the lack of a crown image (head) and more importantly, the second image that was seen on the cloth.
The “Event Horizon” theory alone does not account for the second image on the cloth.
Just an idea, Hugh.
Best,
You’ve lost me here, Angel. “A second image was found on the back of the cloth.” If this second image is really there, it is in exactly the same place as the other ventral image, as if that image had seeped through the cloth and stained the other side as well. This means that that half of the sheet covering the body’s face and arms received an image on both sides of the sheet, the lower side of this half being in contact with the body, and the upper side not. No turning of any kind would be required to achieve this.
“if Jesus did turn His body 180 degrees … then that would explain the missing side-strip of the Shroud, since it would have torn at the seam.” Really? We have drifted way outside physics here, into the realms of miracle. And there’s no saying what a miracle would or would not have done. If Jesus was floating in space as according to Piczek, he wasn’t even touching the cloth, let alone ripping it neatly down the side.
Sadly, terms like ‘Event Horizon,’ rather like ‘Quantum’ and ‘Hologram,’ although sounding plausible to non-scientists, have very specific meanings to physicists, and are wholly inapplicable to the Shroud.
“If Jesus was floating in space as according to Piczek, he wasn’t even touching the cloth, let alone ripping it neatly down the side.”
Hugh, I understand your conclusion, but with respect to Piczek’s theory, Jesus’ body was touching the cloth, prior to the side-seam splitting and the levitation. The constraint of the cloth, enfolding His body, would be the causal factor for Him freeing Himself by opening the top and bottom panels and the side-strip.
Yet, it matters not, since it was just an idea.
Thanks, Hugh.
Best,
It has been asserted that there is a faint facial image on the back of the cloth discovered when the backing cloth was removed. If present it would not be due to “seepage” but to some other cause associated with whatever the image process mechanism was. Barrie Schwortz and other authors wrote a paper, I think during the last 12 months dismissing the claim. I haven’t been able to find the reference in my files but it is probably on Barrie’s shroud.com site. Dan gave it a posting and there was much discussion debating it at the time. The authors dismissed the allegation claiming it was a form of pareidolia. The human mind has evolved so that it quickly tends to see faces which in fact might not be there. I personally felt that I could see such an image and I thought it precipitate to dismiss it so readily. Unfortunately there seems to be no reliable technical means at present to confirm whether such images have a reality or are merely pareidolia. The authors had attempted such an approach but I was personally unconvinced by it. My personal view remains that there may in fact be such an image, but it remains uncertain. I agree with Hugh’s apparent skepticism that such theories as those of Isabel Pizcek on the body turning contribute little except useless speculation and misapply technical terms in a non-scientific way.
And who was the one who state that there is a second image while there is probably not? FANTI! Again, FANTI! Always FANTI!
This guy is the worst sindonologist I know… It’s incredible to see the damage is did and he’s still doing to the credibility of Shroud science.
Yannick, maybe Fanti was so disillusioned by the erroneous
C-14 dating of the Shroud that his research goal was to find something so unique and so incredibly difficult to produce that the non-believers would eventually stop trumpeting, “The C-14 dating proves the Shroud is a fake” or “The image, according to McCrone, is the result of tempera paint containing red ochre and vermilion.”
daveb, you are such a wise man. I love reading your posts.
Yet, Isabel Piczek never claimed Jesus rotated or turned 180 degrees. Isabel only introduced levitation between the two upper and lower sections of the cloth. I wouldn’t want Isabel to be blamed for my wild and crazy 2-step process. Hugh made me realize the impossibility.
My thought was if Jesus were constrained by the Shroud, fitting tightly around His body, and He wanted to transform from the mortal to the spiritual (celestial) body, He would break free of the cloth in some manner, perhaps raising the top half of the cloth. The two missing panels and the missing side stream would have certainly given Him the room to maneuver during the transformation.
Then, after transforming completely into His spiritual bright white garment, He left the Shroud on the marble slab, inside the tomb, as an historical record of His brutal flogging and , as well, a verification for His resurrection.
Thanks daveb!
Best,
Message to Max: Don’t forget to read this comment of mine: http://shroudstory.com/2014/03/05/concerning-the-absence-of-an-image-of-the-top-of-the-head-on-the-shroud-of-turin-and-the-possible-presence-of-blood-in-this-area/#comment-88718
Reminder for YC, my March 14, 2014 at 5:22 pm | #113comment:
“Yannick, if Yeshua was not a hellinistic Judean, his buriers were! This is not a pretty wild assumption at all!
What is really a pretty wild assumption is to believe Second Temple period Judean thought like you and consider Pilate coin central device as offensive, this is just b*******!
Symbolically speaking, Pilate coin central devices were specifically designed (or ambivalent enough) to agree with both 1st c CE Judean and Roman sensibilities. You are totally off the mark (again) and just indulging in a 20th c CE received idea (again).”
Quote: “Symbolically speaking, Pilate coin central devices were specifically designed (or ambivalent enough) to agree with both 1st c CE Judean and Roman sensibilities.”
Reply: That’s probably why Roman coins where not allowed in the Temple…
And concerning the possible fact that some of Jesus’ buriers were hellenistic Jews (it’s very hard to know for sure what kind of Jews Joseph and Nicodemus were), the only thing I want to say is what I already said: Beside Joseph and Nicodemus, there were good pious Jews like John and Mary who would probably not allowed any Pagan coins to be put over their master/son, which they considered as being Christ. That’s my opinion.
And beside that, the main point is the fact that those supposed coins inscriptions will NEVER be scientifically confirmed. Such a thing will forever remain as a “I think I see” kind of thing, which could be real, but certainly also, which could be wrong.
Yannick,you wrote (out of mere ignorance): “That’s probably why Roman coins where not allowed in the Temple…”
Then again you are TOTALLY WRONG in your fact. ANICONIC lepta and dilepta were allowed in the Jerusalem Temple treasure chamber (re-read Mark and the ‘widow’s mite/Pilate coin episode’). How long are you going to be wrong in your fact?
In 2005, I discovered (it is a long story), Joseph of Aramathea/Yossef Ha-Ramathaim and Joseph Barnabas/Yossef Bar Naba are one and the same man. The latter like John-Mark/YoHanan Maqqaba/Lazarus/El’eazar was from Cryptos Island (= Cyprus).
Nicodemus/Beni Naqdimon/Naqi ben Gwryon most likely was from Cyprus too. Whatever the case, he was a Hellenistic Judean (see The Talmwd Babli). Most likely, at least two of them were liberal Pharisees (from Sadducean background?)
I also attempted to identify Yeshua’s 3-4 other buriers. In conjunction with Nicodemus/Naqdimon/Naqi I did find 3-4 other names among which that of Matthias/Mattayah, the substitute for Judas Iscarioth/Yehwdah Ish-Karioth.
you alos wrote: “the main point is the fact that those supposed coins inscriptions will NEVER be scientifically confirmed. Such a thing will forever remain as a “I think I see” kind of thing, which could be real, but certainly also, which could be wrong.
YC you wrote: “you alos wrote: “the main point is the fact that those supposed coins inscriptions will NEVER be scientifically confirmed.” Oh really? I didn’t know besides being a cartographer you were also a French Canadian prophet.
Reminder for YC: Roman lepta and dilepta were aniconic to agree with Judean sensibility.
Reminder for YC: Roman dilepta/prutoth and lepta/half prutoth were specifically designed to be used by Judeans on an everyday basis. Had Pilate coins feature really offensive central devices, they just could not have been used by Judeans, which is not the case. They were even used in the Jerusalem Temple treasure chamber.
Slaa I endlessly repeat: Archaeologically speaking, Pilate coins were used in Second Temple period/1st c. CE funerary practices (nearly a dozen of Jewish tombs yielded 46 Pilate coins both dilepta (lituus type) and lepta (simpulum type). That’s a fact. You can be wrong in your opinion, you just cannot be wrong in your fact.
See e.g. the Jason’s Tomb (Greenhut’s reference)
They were used by hellenistic Jews… Jesus, his family and his disciples were surely not and we don’t know for Joseph and Nicodemus. Those are the facts we know. Now, you can still believe Pagan coins were used on Jesus. That’s your freedom. But I will never agree with you. That’s my freedom.
And concerning your idea that coins with Pagan symbols were used in the Temple, then why there were money changers everywhere around the Temple? This is ludicrous to believe the Jews were accepting coins with Pagan symbols on it in the Temple while they had build the money changer system!!!
YC, the more I read you, the more I am aware how ignorant you are of The Second Temple period History and Archaeology. Keep sticking to your wrong facts and enjoy them. Enyoy your received ideas from your Shroud Guru (Schwortz)as faras Pilate coins are concerned.
BTW changers were there to change pagan silver coins into ANICONIC brass/copper coins to be thrown into the Jerusalem Temple treasure chamber.
Additional reminder for YC: Yeshua’s Judean secret disciples buried him not his Galilean diciples.
And just in case you missed it here is one more comment re the use of Pilate coins in the Roman province of Judeah and Yeshua’s buriers:
ANICONIC lepta and dilepta were allowed in the Jerusalem Temple treasure chamber (re-read Mark and the ‘widow’s mite/Pilate coin episode’). How long are you going to be wrong in your fact?
In 2005, I discovered (it is a long story), Joseph of Aramathea/Yossef Ha-Ramathaim and Joseph Barnabas/Yossef Bar Naba are one and the same man. The latter like John-Mark/YoHanan Maqqaba/Lazarus/El’eazar was from Cryptos Island (= Cyprus).
Nicodemus/Beni Naqdimon/Naqi ben Gwryon most likely was from Cyprus too. Whatever the case, he was a Hellenistic Judean (see The Talmwd Babli). Most likely, at least two of them were liberal Pharisees (from Sadducean background?)
I also attempted to identify Yeshua’s 3-4 other buriers. In conjunction with Nicodemus/Naqdimon/Naqi I did find 3-4 other names among which that of Matthias/Mattayah, the substitute for Judas Iscarioth/Yehwdah Ish-Karioth.
Additional reminder: in 2005, I also found John-Mark was High Priest Hanan’s assitant scribe and son, hence a Hellenistic Judean too.
The Jews did not allowed any coins with Pagan images in the Temple. That’s why they had the money changer system. Every historian know this.
YC wrote: “The Jews did not allowed any coins with Pagan images in the Temple. That’s why they had the money changer system. Every historian know this.” Are you kidding. The Tyrian Silver and aniconic Roman coins of the procurators were used in the Te
…in the Jerusalem Temple treasury chamber. How long are you going to be wrong in your facts?
Even if this would be true, this would have nothing to do with the Pagan rite of putting coins over the eyes of the deads in order for them to be able to pay the toll to cross the Styx river. No Pharisee (like Nicodemus) would have ever wanted to do this kind of rite on a Jewish brother like Jesus and this was most probably true also for Jesus’ disciples and family who were all good Jewish people and not hellenistic Jews. Your idea that coins were put over the eyes of the Shroud man is highly unlikely and the idea that such coins would have left a high-resolution image on a linen sheet is ludicrous (even more if we think such a high-resolution would have been made with blood and would have stay with a high-resolution for 2000 years despite all the vicinities of the Shroud).
What is really ludicrous is to be wrong in your fact and persist or consider true facts such as the use of the Tyrian silver coin and coin of Roman procurators in the Jerusalem Temple treasury chamber as just hypothetical ones (“even if this would be true”)… It really verges on intellectual dishonesty.
BTW YC, did you meet Nicodemus personally? Fist do your homework and read about Nicodemus in the Talmud of Babylone, PLEASE!
Sorry, Dave; I used the word “seeped” qualified by “as if” merely to describe where the alleged image is rather than to explain it, or even agree to its existence. If it exists at all, it is reputedly as superficial as the one on the other side, though how this is known I can’t say. In that case it certainly could not have been formed by seepage, unlike the bloodstains which clearly have seeped through.
But Yannick, do not be too frustrated by Prof. Fanti – even St Raymond went along with the idea that there was double superficiality, as it fitted in rather neatly with his evaporation gradient hypothesis. See Rogers’s FAQs on shroud.com.
Hugh, I like the idea of the “double superficiality, as it fitted in rather neatly with his evaporation gradient hypothesis.” It makes quite a bit of sense to me. Fanti may have been the first to assert double superficiality, but he’s not the only to claim seeing it. I think it remains an open possibility and still usefully debatable as to whether it’s there or not. It’s a highly subjective perception, and I think it’s quite possible. The evaporation gradient hypothesis means that there could have been coatings on both sides of the cloth, the body catalyst vapours penetrating the weave but necessarily forming a fainter image on the obverse side. I don’t see how Fanti’s various radiation theories get anything out of it though.
Actually, the “double superficiality” is very limited as it only refers to part of the face and maybe hands… It would be fit in rather rather neatly not only with evaporation gradient hypothesis but also tighter wrapping-up in shrouds or more cloth-to-body/body-to-cloth pressures in these most specific areas.
On January 26, 2012 at 5:18 pm, #108 comment, I wrote:
“The hair, eyebrow arch, beard and moustache images on the back and front side of the linen cloth are capillar not radiative images. In other words, they are not “superficial images” but in the thickness of the linen fabric and do completely run through the material (capillary action). They are dried fluid images. This is pretty obvious ONLY when the said areas are observed in transmtted light or from photograph taken in transmitted light (see 1988 Riggi photographs). French Shroud scholar Marcel Alonso noticed it well before me:
“L’hypothèse de la double superficialité de l’image (Fanti, Rogers, 2005) est démentie par l’image en transmission prise par Riggi en 1988, qui montre qu’elle existe bien dans l’épaisseur du tissu.” and “les images par transmission laissent voir un léger épaississement des fils, dans les mailles (pourtant lâches), confirmant la présence de l’image dans la profondeur du tissage. En effet, les fils dont le diamètre est 100 fois plus grand que les fibres n’ont pu piéger un surcroît de liquides, colloïdes et particules associées, qu’aux points de contacts entre eux. Ce seront les zones ayant retenu dans leurs mailles le plus de fluides qui apparaîtront après séchage les plus sombres (celles au contact des cheveux, moustache, barbe, sourcils…). C’est une preuve supplémentaire en faveur du principe d’image capillaire, opposé au à celui d’image radiative.”
(the above-mentioned observations are extracted from a paper entitled “Le Linceul est-il Surnaturel ?” Alonso wrote in 2005).
On February , 2012, I quoted French Shroud scientist Marcel Alonso: “The hypothesis of the double superficiality of the [face Shroud] image (Fanti, Rogers, 2005) is belied by the image in transmitted light taken by Riggi in 1988. [To the sole exception of the right side of the Shroud man’s long flowing hair], the image shows that it does exist in the thickness of the fabric.”
In spite of image enhancement, most of the left side of the face actually does not even clearly appear on the backside of the long
linen cloth. There are more than some caveats re “double superficiality”.
Max, from what you’ve written here, I’m getting the impression that the image is not as uniformly superficial as seems to have been the general assertion. If the image was formed on the carbohydrate coating produced as a result of evaporation, it would seem that there might be a few areas where the carbohydrates did not entirely migrate to the surface, but there were a few places where it was left in the body of the cloth, allowing the image to form therein. On the obverse side of the cloth there should be a coating, some of the body vapours would penetrate between the fibres and allow an image to form on the obverse. As well as that, I’m reading that you’re saying that some of the image is in the body of the cloth. Am I reading you correctly?
Dave, Alonso provides the right explanation: “les fils dont le diamètre est 100 fois plus grand que les fibres n’ont pu piéger un surcroît de liquides, colloïdes et particules associées, qu’aux points de contacts entre eux. Ce seront les zones ayant retenu dans leurs mailles le plus de fluides qui apparaîtront, après séchage, les plus sombres (celles au contact des cheveux, moustache, barbe, sourcils…)”, which implies (my own explanation) they fit in rather neatly with tighter wrapping-up in shrouds or more cloth-to-body/body-to-cloth pressures in these most specific areas.
Reminder: in my ritualistic hypothesis, the tightly wrapped-up body would have been dried out in extra height resting on its right side NOT in suspine position. Besides, it cannot either be totally ruled out the fabric had ORIGINALLY(i.e. once woven) been put in the field to dry out on one side only.
“Changers were there to change pagan silver coins into ANICONIC brass/copper coins to be thrown into the Jerusalem Temple treasure chamber.” This is interesting, and makes a lot of sense. However, it is directly contradicted by a number of books whose authors claim that the reverse was the case. Jewish coins were only permitted to be of bronze or copper (and were all aniconic), and only silver coins were allowed in the temple. Tyrian coins fitted the bill, as they were not minted by Romans directly, and had a high and stable silver content. The money changers therefore changed Jewish bronze coins into Tyrian silver ones, not the other way round. Curiously, perhaps, Tyrian coins were not aniconic at all, but apparently gave no offence.
Similarly, there seems considerable dispute about the archaeological evidence for coins in Jewish burials. Jason’s Tomb (excavated by Prof. Rahmani in 1967), as mentioned by Max above, was indeed littered with coins, and Prof. Rahmani’s categorical statement from 1980: “No coins of the period 50 BC to 70 AD were found in any tomb,” is a curious contradiction. Since then a number of coins have been found in tombs, although their occurrence is rare and they are not obviously associated with any ritual placment over the eyes, in the mouth or anywhere else.
Hugh you wrote: “only silver coins were allowed in the temple”. Wrong.
Carefully re-read the Mark’s widow’s mite episode,please. It is clearly said bronzes/coppers (‘mites’) were thrown in the Temple treasure chamber.
You also wrote: “The money changers therefore changed Jewish bronze coins into Tyrian silver ones, not the other way round.” Half true. Roman silver coins could be changed in aniconic small bronze coins to be thrown into the treasure chamber not only Tyrian silvers.
coorection: Re-read the widow’s mite episode in the light of the Gospels (not only Marks).
Re Roman aniconic coins(Pilate coin included), any archaeologist worth his/her salt has to/should admit they were used one way or another (or more than one way) in Second Temple funerary practices. This has not been convincingly cleared up yet (see Greenhut). Placement of Roman aniconic coins over the deceased’s eyes (no matter how sporadic) just cannot be totally excluded in the state of our knowledge of 1st c. CE Jewish burials
Only ignorant/agenda driven people can TOTALLY ruled out the possibility.
Typo: Tyrian silver coins could be changed in aniconic small bronze coins to be thrown into the treasure chamber not only Roman silver coins.
Reminder: in Jason’s Tomb, Pilate coins were found at the deceased feet and belly levels. Thus Pilates coins could be placed over a Jewish deceased’s body.
Ah, yes. Further clarification. There were, according to http://www.bible-history.com/court-of-women/the_temple_treasury.htm,l no less than 13 ‘contribution chests’ collectively known as the Treasury. 4 of these were for any voluntary donations, regardless of quality (such as the ‘widow’s mite’), and 2 were for the compulsory half-shekel tax paid by everybody every year. This tax was only acceptable in Tyrian silver, which was the purpose of the money-changers. The other 7 chests were for various other services, but I don’t know if this had to be changed into silver as well. In the unlikely event that pilgrims already had Tyrian silver coins, they didn’t have to be changed at all.
But Max seems to be correct that the use of coins in first century burial rites cannot be ruled out, which renders at least a possibility that they were used for Jesus.
Hugh, re the use of Roman aniconic coins (Piate coin included) in Second Temple period burials, I just like the way you lukewarmely assert ‘I seem’ correct… 46 Pilate coins found inside nearly a dozen Jewsh tombs. I just like the way you (very discreetly) admit not only Tyrian silver coins but also bronze/copper aniconic coin were allowed in the
… Second period Jerusalem Temple treasure chamber… Lukewarmish people are definitely just not my cup of tea.
Sorry for the typo, I am having a bottle of Chardonnay.
Max, what was the purpose of placing coins, Roman or otherwise, in a Jewish burial shroud/tomb?
This Pagan custom was done with the idea that the dead had to pay the toll to cross the Styx river! I just don’t see any of Jesus’ disciple following such a Pagan belief…
That’s what perplexes me. Were these non-practising or fallen-away Jews who were hedging their bets by adopting pagan customs? What is the motivation of a devout Jew to adopt a pagan burial custom?
It also seems odd that anyone would place a coin on Jesus’ body given his Gospel actions of cleansing the Temple of the money-changers (the symbolism being clear that the Holy of Holies was to have no admission price) and the ‘render under Ceasar’ teaching that showed complete indifference to the importance of earthly currency.
There may have been Jews who ended with coins in their tombs, but for this particular Jewish rabbi it makes no sense. Possible yes, probable no.
Of course Max (and a few others) claim to see the coins there. If they are right then it’s a mystery to me why they were put there.
I agree 100% with you David! And for your question: Who were those Jews? They were hellenistic Jews who adopted the Greco-Roman lifestyle and it’s a proven fact that there were some of those in Jerusalem around Jesus time and it seems most of them came from the rich families from whom a vast majority of Saducees came. And it is also a proven fact that, throughout their long history, some members of the Jewish people were tempted to follow the Pagan cults that were present all around Palestine. This did not only happen during the exodus but in every era up until Jesus time and also later on. Fighting against these temptations were always the center of the prophetic message and was pushed way too far by the Pharisees.
Note that while Joseph of Arimatea was a rich man probably member of the Saducee party, Nicodemus was a Pharisee and we can have serious doubt that such a man would follow any Pagan cult…
Shall I endlessly repeat, in the hypothesis the TS man is Yeshua/Jesus:
Reminder one: Joseph of Arimathea/Yossef Ha-Ramathaym aka Joseph Barnabas/Yossef Bar Naba and Nikodemos/Naqdimon were romanized hellenestic Judeans (see Acts + Talmud of Babylone)and liberal Pharisees (with a Sadducean background?).
Hence most likely Yosseph Ha-Ramathaym/Yossef Bar Naba placed himself the coins over Yeshua’s eyes on burial(reminder two: the very name Yossef was given to the eldest son/disciple for him to close not only his father’s eyes but also his master’s (aka Yeshua Ha-Nostry’s/Jesus of Nazareth’s).
The placing of coins over Yeshua’s eyes had nothing to do with the Charon’s obol… but in your dreams. It was both to keep his eyelids closed/hide his still open/half open eyes and to read as a silent/coin rebus-like/coin puzzle-like eulogy as eulogy was not allowed to be pronounced in the month of Nissan, the month in which Yeshua was put to death.
liberal pharisee is a contradiction in terms… The pharisees were ultra-orthodox Jews who wanted to separate themselves with any non-Jewish people and tradition. You are daydreaming again Max…
And there’s absolutely no doubt at all that putting Pagan coins over the eyes of deads was a Pagan rite only done in Palestine by hellenistic Jews. You are daydreaming again Max.
YC you wrote: “liberal Pharisees is a contradiction in terms”, “Pharisees were ultra-orthodox Jews”.
You’d better do you homework as you seem to be totally unable to discriminate between “conservative Pharisees(without Sadducean background)AND liberal Pharisees (with Sadducean background). You ignorance of the Second Temple period history is flabbergasting!
Ever heard of the school of Rabbi Shammai and that of Rabbi Hillel? Have you ever heard John Mark was Joseph Barnabas’s cousin. Now Barnabas (most likely aka Joseph of Aramathea) was a rich man and a Levite from Cyprus… Who is daydreaming Second Temple period history out of mere ignorance? YOU are!
[Removed for being overly insulting]
“The Jews did not allowed any coins with Pagan images in the Temple. That’s why they had the money changer system. Every historian know this.” As you can see from the discussion above, not only were pagan images allowed in the temple, they were positively insisted upon. Google ‘jewish temple tyrian silver’ to find what “every historian” really knows.
Max has made the point that Pilate coins were found in Jewish tombs, possibly these coins may also have been placed in the ossuaries as they might have been thought now unclean. The Tyrian silver was apparently used to pay the temple tribute.
We do not really know whether the Greek custom of placing coins over the eyes arose in order to “pay the ferry-man”, or whether the Charon / Styx myth arose from an established cultural practice of hiding the open eyes of a dead person so they would not seem to be staring, for instance.
The USCCB commentary on Matthew 22:17-21 makes some interesting observations:
[22:19] They handed him the Roman coin: their readiness in producing the money implies their use of it and their acceptance of the financial advantages of the Roman administration in Palestine.
[Accidentally posted before I’d finished];
Further USCCB commentary on Matt 22:17-21;
“Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar: those who willingly use the coin that is Caesar’s should repay him in kind. The answer avoids taking sides in the question of the lawfulness of the tax. To God what belongs to God: Jesus raises the debate to a new level. Those who have hypocritically asked about tax in respect to its relation to the law of God should be concerned rather with repaying God with the good deeds that are his due;”
The Herodians favoured paying the tax, the Pharisees did not, so it’s a calculated entrapment.
Clearly the coin of the temple tribute had an image of the emperor on it, yet the Judean people were happy to use this coin of the realm in their commercial transactions. Yet another instance of pharisaic hypocracy. They’re happy to take advantage of the benefits of Roman administration, despite their wrangling over the small stuff.
No; we must distinguish between the Jewish Temple Tax, for which Roman coin was unacceptable (and had to be changed into Tyrian), and the “Imperial Roman Tax” for which it was acceptable. Tyrian coins had an image of a God on them, which was apparently ignored for administrative purposes, but an image of the Roman emperor, it seems, was a step too far.
Thanks for the correction Hugh. I had somehow in my mind associated Matt 22:17-21 as a sort of temple tax paid as a tribute to Caesar, which was way off the mark. One of the sources I’ve now checked explains the rabbinic rationalisation of using the Baal inscribed Tyrian silver piece for the temple tax that it was 97% silver whereas the Roman coinage was only 80%; They apparently considered it more important that the correct amount of silver be paid to the temple rather than the prohibition of such an image as Baal. When the Romans closed the Tyrian mint, it was a Jewish mint near Jerusalem that then minted these coins. The Romans did not want to allow an impression of Jewish independence to be created by lettng them mint specifically Jewish coins, and as the Baal coins were acceptable before, that design had to stand.
The purpose of the money changers was for the exchange of common coinage for the temple coins. Very likely Judas Iscariot’s 30 pieces of silver were in these temple coins. Matthew has a story that Jesus told Peter and James to catch a fish which had a temple coin in its mouth, so they could pay the temple tax.
In reply to David
COINS OVER EYES: GOOD ARCHAEOLOGY – part I –
The two cases of coins found in skulls in Jericho and a similar coin of Agrippa I retrieved from the skull of a woman in ossuary 8 in the Caiaphas family tomb in Jerusalem were much too rapidly explained as coins placed in the mouth, as payment for Charon (Charon’s obol) for ferrying the deceased across the river Styx, mainly because that custom was well known in the Hellenistic world.
Now in the 1990s CE, Italian MD, Sebastiano RODANTE and Italian ancient coin collector Mario MARONI convincingly demonstrated a small coin of the augur wand/lituus type placed over the eye of a deceased head held upright or stilted forward can fall into the mouth as the body decays.
Thus there are some caveats for coins having directly been placed in the mouth to abide by a Hellenistic custom among the Second Temple period Judeans. It would be good archaeology not to too rapidly rule out the real possibility for such small thin bronze coins to have been originally placed over the eyes in order both to keep the deceased’s eyelids closed (or hide his eyes) and pay a last tribute to the deceased’s memory in the manner of a rebus-like silent eulogy (see my 2005 unpublished paper “Linceul de Turin : L’Eloge Funèbre du Christ Retrouvée ? ou Tentative de décrytptage d’un très singulier rebus monétaire”.
Reminder: According to Jewish traditional custom, the eulogy should not be PRONOUNCED to honour the departed during the entire month of Nisan.
Recurring to a monetary rebus to silently honour the departed Rabbi is therefore a real possibility to finally account for the placement of coins over eyes in the Second Temple period.
Most likely, the placement of coins over Yeshua as great Torah Scholar’s eyes was done with this kavannah, i.e. in this specific design.
Addendum: the word kavvanah (literally “direction”)refers to one ‘s state of mind/intentin i.e. concentration on the meaning of the words recited, the act performed (here silent eulogy), or the theological goal (such as the acceptance of the sovereignty of God).
So the coins used for paying Charon were customarily placed in the mouth, and not the ones on the eyes. Maybe the Greeks placed them on the eyes as well as a mark of respect?
If the 2nd temple Jews placed coins on the eyes, they could then fall into the mouth when the flesh rotted during the first year. When the family came to place the bones in an ossuary, presumably any coins among the bones would be left with them, more or less where they fell. Does this make sense? So if the coins had fallen between the jaws, the relatives would leave them there. Or if there were coins in the ossuary, essentially it does not follow that they were intended for Charon anyway!
Reminder: 59 coins of “Roman procurators” + 12 “Roman” coins were found inside a dozen of Second Temple period tombs. More than half of them are Pilate coins (augur wand and lituus types). This speaks volumes re the use of Roman coins in Second Temple period funerary pratices. Now we have YC telling us this is not a fact!
I suppose the point is that a few dozen coins in a few dozen tombs is an extremly small proportion of the hundreds (thousands?) of burials examined. Although I agree that they are the exception that proves the rule, one cannot, on this evidence alone, claim that finding coins in a Jewish tomb is not very unusual.
It was a Second Temple period sporadic funerary pratice at worse, yet a funerary practice all the same whether YC likes it or not.
Hugh, besides Roman coins, Herodian coins too shall be taken into account, which involved 27 Second Temple period tombs (hence more than two dozens).
… and 124 coins in all (in 2005).
…thus more than 10 dozens of coins.
Methinks they might well be only the tip of the Second Temple period funerary monetary iceberg.
Hugh, BTW I never “claimed that finding coins in a Jewish tomb is not very unusual” but in your dreams. I always said it could be a sporadic Second Temple period funerary pratice yet most likely as many coins (if not ten times more) used on burials might well have been lost with time…
… just because of secondary burials (in ossuaries).
To Hugh, just hundreds (nor thousands!) of Second Temple period were excavated.
Typo: To Hugh, just hundreds (nor thousands!) of Second Temple period TOMBS were excavated.
Typo: (augur wand and pail types)
It does seem genuine facts are undeniable except for… YC!
In the 1990s too, American MD, Alan WHANGER has also experimentally demonstrated that, by a ‘piggybank effect’, a bronze dilepton (augur wand/lituus type), once placed on each eye of a deceased lying in a supine position, can drop through each superior orbital fissure and fall into the brain-pan as the body decays. It would be good archaeology too to integrate this forensic datum to re-assess past findings and in particular that of two bronze coins discovered in Jericho tomb D3 as the the coins were found stuck together in a skull uncovered in koch 1.
When there is evidence of the possible placement of a small thin bronze coin on (each) eye of the deceased in three excavated Second Temple period tombs (in Jerusalem and in Jericho), it would be good archaeology to admit that such a specific funerary practice might well have existed no matter how sporadic or even rare among the Judeans of the said period.
Reminder: Second Temple period (37CE-70CE)
To assert coin-on-eye placement was a non-extant 1st C. CE Judean funerary practice is to be in denial of evidence to the contrary.
MPH – “To Hugh, just hundreds (nor thousands!) of Second Temple period were excavated.”
At the time of the Talpiot tomb controversy, I was interested in checking the frequency of names on inscribed ossuaries. I found a web-site reference to L. Y. Rahmani, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries, Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities (Jerusalem: 1994)
The catalogue had only 917 ossuaries of which 231 had inscribed names, 286 names in all. There would be several ossuaries in each tomb. I have not checked on which ossuaries had coins in them, but Max’s 124 coins suggest that the practice was common, if Rahmani’s 917 ossuaries of 1991 and their associated tombs were the ones with the coins. Max’s 2005 source might include more tombs. Perhaps the practice of depositing coins was more widespread than being merely sporadic!
Actually, Max source, Rahel Haklili’s 2005 book on Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period says:
“Although during the past century hundreds of tombs dating from the Second Temple down to the Late Roman period have been excavated or surveyed, coins are a rare occurrence. Only a scattering of coins have been found in various Jerusalem and Jericho tombs, most of them not in situ.” After listing and discussing most of these, Haklili concludes:
“Thus, placing coins in tombs does not seem to have been part of the customary burial ritual, although it is occasionally evinced. It was no doubt an even rarer occurrence among Jews.”
The two assessments are inconsistent. Summarising Max, 71 coins found in 12 Second Temple period tombs, apparently half of them Pilate coins, Herodian coins involving 27 tombs, 124 coins in all, out of a total of only a few hundred tombs excavated. That looks like about 10% of tombs were found to have coins, plus any other tombs where there were coins, but undiscovered, not mentioned, or else removed. I couldn’t describe that as a rare practice as apparently Haklili does! I suspect a cultural bias seems evident. What are the numerical facts on which Haklili asserts it was rare among Jews, or is it just a sweeping generalisation?
Alas, I can’t say. It may simply boil down to a personal definition of rarity. One in a hundred? One in ten? It may be that every few years, as another dozen graves are found, with or without coins, the ratio shifts anyway. Especially as from time to time a large amount of coins are found in a single grave – as in Jason’s Tomb, mentioned above. And it may be that Haklili was comparing Jewish tombs to Greek or Roman ones, where perhaps coins are overwhelmingly present, in his assessment of rarity. Max’x reference lists 27 tombs with coins. Maybe about fifty out of about a thousand (5%) seems about right!
To Hugh re Rachel Hachlili’s assement of rarity, Rachel Hachlili is a lady (her assement). 3-5% is a fair estimate irrespective of the percentage of coins inside tombs that were undiscovered, or else disappeared with time.
My profoundest apologies to the Professor, and for misspelling her surname too.
Most curiously, alike Rahmani, Hachlili tends to underrate the presence of coins inside Second Temple period tombs. Reminder: Prof. Rahmani stating “No coins of the period 50 BC to 70 AD were found in any tomb,” when he himself discovered no less than 55 coins in the Jason Tomb in 1967!
The Jason tomb yielded n less than 28 Pilate coins (at the feet and nearby the body remains).
Was the man losing it during the coin-over-eye controversy?
As far as I can remember, Hachlili was one of Rahmani’s students. Maybe she did want to hurt her former professor’s sensibility on the issue… The fact is she revised her position in 1979. First she tended to admit the placement of coins over the deceased’s eyes as a very sporadic Second Temple funerary practice…
Typo: she didn’t want to hurt her former professor’s sensibilty.
Max, you do know that this is not Twitter. You can put all your ideas in one longer post rather than 7 thousand short ones.
I have not that much sparetime to write away long comments (my name is not Yannick Clément or Colin Berry who seemingly have much more time off than me). So most of the time, I can just pass comments in snatches (and with a thousand typos) while I am working…
This week or next week, I’ll email Dan a Flash Illustrative REply (F.I.RE)in which I’d put most of my ideas re “the coin-over-eye issue and good archaeology”, this as an implicit comment to Yannick Clément blind advocacy of the Charon’s obol hypothesis and the alleged ‘offensiveness’ of Pilate coins obverse symbols seen through the eyes of Second temple period romanized hellenistic Judean and liberal Pharisees with Sadducean background (School of Hillel.
Max, you do need to try to make fewer posts. As it is, your thoughts get so fragmented what you have to say gets marginalized. I’m reminded of the Burma Shave ads of the 1950s. The company finally realized that people were not absorbing the message.
It occurs to me that regardless of whether 2nd Temple Hellenist or even Hebraic Jews placed coins in the mouth or not, or whether the coins fell from the eyes into the mouth, it might well have little pagan religious significance at all, but may only reflect a cultural habit or practice that had developed, albeit with pagan origins. Just reflect on what the present commercial world and the general public have now done to the Christian religious festivals of Christmas and Easter, which among many have lost any religious significance they once had. Chrissy presents of the latest ipads and chocolate eggs are a far cry from the Incarnation and the Resurrection.
It’s a fair point, Daveb. But we don’t consider ourselves ritually unclean because we touched a tax collector either. We have to be mindful of the differences in our cultural contexts as well as the similarities. I for one won’t rule out coins on Yeshua’s eyes, but it just doesn’t gel with what the Gospel’s imply — of course they don’t tell the whole story (historically speaking) either. As with so much of the Shroud, it is mystery wrapped in mystery.
Recapitulating: A number of investigators including MPH have asserted that the Shroud image shows coins of the Pilate era on or near the eyes imagery. Others have challenged this either as pareidolia, or else that they are not sufficiently distinct to be persuasive. However if it could be conclusively demonstrated that the alleged coin images are indeed real, this has to be a powerful argument that the Shroud image indeed dates from the first century, and reinforces the likelihood of authenticity.
Some, including YC, have asserted that placing coins on a dead person’s eyes is a pagan custom associated with the Hellenistic myth of Charon and the Styx, and it is therefore unthinkable that religious Jews should do this. However whatever the origins of the custom, and there are good social and practical reasons why it should be done, enough has been said to demonstrate that the practice was not so rare as some may have asserted and it was not so uncommon.
It is therefore perfectly acceptable that there may well have been coins placed over the eyes of the TSM. If it is ever conclusively demonstrated and accepted such was the the case, then the anti-authenticists have yet another problem they have to resolve. Perhaps a 13th century numismatist associate of Roger Bacon included this bright idea on the bas-relief he used when scorching the image on to this expensive and rare piece of linen cloth???!!! A pity he left no written record of the event!
Dave you wrote: “YC, have asserted that placing coins on a dead person’s eyes is a pagan custom associated with the Hellenistic myth of Charon and the Styx, and it is therefore unthinkable that religious Jews should do this.”
Actually, YC (who is totally ignorant of Second Temple history and archeaology)is just parroting what Schwortz told him;he never has done serious research re the coin-over-eye issue neither Schwortz has. They just keep parroting Rahmani and Hachlili’s dubious explanation re the ‘unusual’Judean custom of placing a coin in thee deceased’s mouth.as the latter totally missed the forensic datum that small thin bronze coins alike Pilate coins can fall from the eyes into the mouth and be too rapidly mistaken for the Charon’s obol sign.
Sorry for the typo (again): Both Rahmani and Hachlili totally missed the forensic datum that small thin bronze coins alike Pilate coins can fall from the eyes into the deceased’s mouth and be too rapidly mistaken for a Charon’s obol sign. The Israeli archaeologists were neither forensic archaeologists nor archaeocryptologists (needless to say for the latter field approach).
Max, I accept that it is quite possible that small bronze coins placed on the eyes of a dead persons may eventually fall in between the mandibles, and is one credible explanation of such discoveries. However I’m also open to the likelihood that practices which had originated with some religious or even a more practical purpose in mind, can also have a tendency to survive long after the original purpose has been forgotten so that they become more of a cultural practice or social habit.
Palestine had at the time a cosmopolitan population, so that there would even be cross-exchanges of practices. I see it in NZ all the time, with various ethnic practices migrating into other cultures. I know families of European ethnicity who after the birth of a child will imitate the Maori practice of burying the after-birth sac and plant a tree over it; the tree becomes the child’s own special tree.
Here’s a variation which you may have come across when in the Middle East. A lady acquaintance with family working in Arabia, claims that the original purpose in wearing the burkha was to protect the eyes from desert sand-storms. The practice was retained even when families migrated away from desert environments, so that it became a cultural practice. Finally, of course it became a religious obligation. I have no idea whether her story has factual substance or not, or whether you are able to corroborate it, but it certainly seems plausible. Back in the 1970s, the psychologist Eric Berne was asserting that many such social rituals, frequently had once served a useful practical purpose, but subsequently had merely become ritualised.
We have 3rd and 4th century sources that asserted that the spreading of altar cloths were intended to represent Christ’s burial cloths. As a eucharistic minister I am required to lay out a corporal cloth on the altar before Mass. I am sure that I would be one of the very few ministers aware of the alleged origins of this practice. All such practices have a tendency to survive long after their original intent has been forgotten. However they may be rationalised in other ways.
Dave,
I do agree with you for most of what you wrote. Methinks The placing of coins over the deceased eyes is sort of an original recycling of the Hellenistic custom of placing a coin or two in the deceased’s mouth.
Most likely, there were specific circumstances in which (rich?) Judean buriers or mourners recurred to placing coins over eyes not only to prevent the deceased’s eyelids to lift up or to hide his/her open/half open eyes but also to honour the deceased’s memory and abide by the Halakha(Judean religious law)when the eulogy was not allowed to be pronounced.
In the years 2003-2004, my personal investigation of the issue led me to seriously consider the possibility of coins central devices and/or legend to be used (within Second Temple period Judean context) in a manner of puzzle or rebus (i.e. via image and word plays in Hebrew, Aramaic and even Greek) to have silent eulogy. Reminder: no eulogy for instance should be pronounced during burials occuring in the month of Nissan. Now in the hypothesis the TS man is Yeshua, he was put to death in the very month of Nissan at a time when most definitely a eulogy just could not be pronounced over his body (today it is allowed/
tolerated to pronounce a eulogy only over great Torah Teachers’ bodies though).
I even went as far as reconstructing both a short and long version of the TS man’s silent eulogy by means of Pilate coins symbols and legends (see my 2005 unpublished paper “Linceul de Turin : L’Eloge Funèbre du Christ Retrouvée ? ou Tentative de décrytptage d’un très singulier rebus monétaire”).
The idea that the coins on eyes, on Jesus, were a rebus is novel. I could see Joseph placing Pilate coins on Jesus to echo Jesus’ teaching “render unto Caesar” — in other words “these coins belong to this world, just like this corpse” but Jesus’ spirit belongs to God and heaven. Pilate can have the flesh, God takes the soul.
The human reflex for symbolism can never be underestimated.
Dave, re the full face and body veil or niqab Islamic women are required to wear in Saudi Arabia, I should say what is little known by westerners and even most Muslims: originally Muhammad’s brides went unveiled. However because of extrenal pressures, he had to have his bride veiled in public lest they be considered as ‘whores’.
BTW originally, the full face veil is… Jewish.
In Judaism the concept of covering the head is or was associated with propriety and modesty. It was taken up by Muslims and covered the full head and body of Islamic women altough the Quran
has no requirement that women cover their faces with a veil.
Correction: BTW originally, the Islamic full face veil is… Jewish and/or Assyrian (as Hebrews were exiled in Assyria).
In the hypothesis the TS man is Yeshu‛a, a few ‘shroudies’ have been first puzzled as to the reason why apparently one of Yeshua’s buriers might have placed two small bronze coins featuring allegedly ‘obvious’ (to whom?) Roman/pagan symbols (simulum and lituus) over his master’s eyes and then found the possibily totally unacceptable (they even went as far as pushing it as a non-fact) while the very same ‘shroudies’ most complacently/light-heartedly accepted (almost) as if it were a fact the very idea small bronze coins might have been placed no matter how sporadically in the deceased’ mouth as Charon’s obol (a Hellenistic/pagan custom) on Second Temple period Judaean burials!
Firstly, how can ‘themshroudies’ push it as a fact or near-fact when actually the latter opinion is first and foremost a hypothesis/a suggestion and …a very weak one mainly by two archaeologists (Rahmani and Hachlili) who are neither forensic archaeologists nor archaeocryptologists and thus just cannot tell us forensically and archaeocryptologically stricto sensu whether the coins retrieved in skulls were originally placed over the eyes or in the mouth?
Secondly, I’d like ‘them shroudies’ to tell me too how they can discriminate between kohenite and levite Sadducee’s, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ Pharisees’, Essenians’ and even Zealots’ Second Temple tombs when they see one of them in picture or in situ whether in Jericho or in Jerusalem and if the 3 tombs (in which coins were found in skulls), are Sadducean, Pharisian, Essenian or Zealotic tombs beyond the shadow of a rational doubt.
Thirdly, Could ‘themshroudies’ tell me too how come only a very few among Judaeans came to adopt such a sporadic pagan practice (Charon’s obol) during the Second Temple tombs in Jericho and Jerusalem? In other words, can they tell me exactly the reason why it was not more widespread among the same religious group?
Main Typos: Thirdly, could ‘themshroudies’ tell me too how come only a very few among Judaeans WOULD HAVE COME to adopt such a sporadic pagan practice (Charon’s obol) during the Second Temple tombs in Jericho and Jerusalem? In other words, can they tell me exactly the reason why it WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN more widespread among the same religious group?
Not sure if I’m one of ‘them shroudies’ but I did comment above that your theory that the coins on the eyes may be a rebus was interesting. If Joseph, or other burier, placed Pilate coins on Jesus’ eyelids with symbolic irony in mind, this gels with the Gospel context.
Or, if the coins are there and it’s following mere custom, then perhaps the Gospel accounts exaggerate the Jewish distaste for pagan imagery.
My main problem with the coins is not so much philosophical. Everything we can see (that we all agree that we see) on that image is organic based: blood, human flesh, hair. However the image was formed (gases, light, heat) it appears to be connected to the body itself. How then did the coins, which are metal and not organic, leave an image? If anything they should have blocked image formation over the eyes or wherever they fell.
Flowers…maybe…as they are organic might have allowed for image transfer.
But here’s another question, as long as we are musing. I think of how microwave radiation can cook meat yet leave the paper towel covering it unaltered. Could some form of exterior light or radiation discharge have altered the body inside the linen, leaving the image without affecting the linen itself. I suppose this is merely a reverse idea to Fanti’s corona discharge hypothesis – where (if I’m correct) the thought is that the energy started inside and progressed outward.
To David,
On March 13, 2014 at 6:51 pm | #100 Reply I wrote: “Actually the body image resolution is 0.5cm while the blood image (and thus any blood smeared object images) resolution is 0.4-0.5mm. Experimentally, Moroni, Rodante and myself could record accordingly a Pilate coin, Syracusian silver coin and one Euro cent coin tiny characters on a 3/1 twill fabric providing the coin was partly smearded with blood. This is a fact. Schwortz, Lynn and Gonella got it all wrong.”
Hence the pressed bloodsmeared coins were no more only metallic but also somehow ‘partly organic’ and could easly be recorded on the in-soaked linen fabric. That’s as simple as that (an experimentally proven)!
Thanks for backtracking to that one, I missed it. A blood imprint…hmmm…that at least would be consistent with what we do know about possible image formation.
The heat source could have been internal i.e. from the body in hyperthermia (40-2° C) and/or external i.e. from burning aloe wood (and granulized myrh)in a (couple of?) shovel(s) placed just underneath the tighly wrapped body as stiff rigid as a wooden board resting in extra height on two raised stones or piles of granulized myrrh (the latter impies fumigation and drying rite and the long inner shroud aka Turin Shroud having been in-soaked beforehand with an akali watery solution).
Addendum: Re the haematic body map,it also implies the tightly wrapped-up body had been laid on its right side first.
Giovanna De Liso succeeded in obtaining 3D images of a strictly metallic key, and which was not smeared in blood!
OK Dave, However it does remain my solution it ‘just a little bit’ easier to get at as far as recording coins on a 3/1 linen fabric is concerned! It just needs one burier deliberately or accidentally smearing 2-3 fingers of his with the crucifixion victim shed blood to get two 0.4-0.5mm resolution coin images onto the said fabric at eye level. Two incomplete blood decals that could very easily dried out in conjunction with a body fumigation rite!
Addendum: I did detect very intriguing brown yellowish to carmine red tiny bloodstain patterns on both eye areas in 2002 Durante Shroud face Second generation paper copy. I do hope some day Il Centro Internazionale will put at my disposal a 2002 Durante Shroud face authentic photographic copy to triple check my findings on 1931 Enrie and Miller’s black and white Shroud face photographs.
David you wrote: “Not sure if I’m one of ‘them shroudies’ but I did comment above that your theory that the coins on the eyes may be a rebus was interesting. If Joseph, or other burier, placed Pilate coins on Jesus’ eyelids with symbolic irony in mind, this gels with the Gospel context.”
As long as you get a really open mind for a naturalistic explanation to account for all the true characteristics of the TS bloodied image and don’t push as a fact or near fact a supernaturalistic one, you are definitely not one of ‘them shroudies’.
In the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s, re small bronze coin very partly smeared in blood being placed over his eyes, their very smearing could have been deliberate so that the coins could have better adhered to his closed/half open eyelids and thus leave his buriers and secret disciples time and peace enough to let a silent eulogy be triggered through the coin rebus and reach their heart. Most likey there was no ‘irony in [their]mind’ at all as the coin rebus could have been made to honour their master as qorvan lezeker, ‘offering pro memoriam’.
Actually in 2004-2005, by applying two of the three main Hillelian hermeneutic rules, I was able to decipher a trilingual silent coin eulogy (a Hebrew and Greek short version + a Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek long one).
Typo: by applying two of the SEVEN main Hillelian hermeneutic rules TO COIN SYMBOLS (+ LEGENDS)
Needless to say what I reconstructed as a Second Temple period romanized Hellenistic liberal/levite Pharisees’ very specific funerary practice has nothing to do with the Charon’s obol…
Reminder for YC et al: The vast majority of the Pharisees were laymen, yet a small number of the Pharisees were also Priests and Levites.
For educated Christians, the best known example is Joseph Flavius
Back to the thread…
David, I just happen to notice I missed your March 6, 2014 at 11:17 am | #21 Reply | Quote: “If I saw the terrible wounds left by this mocking crown, I’d be moved to replace thorns with flowers – for both symbolic reasons and the practical (smell, insect repellent, etc). It’s total conjecture, I know, but Occam’s Razor can’t always account for the poetry that is human behaviour.”
Your’poetic conjecture’ might well prove right. In the hypothesis the TS man is Yeshu’a, symbolically speaking, I personnally do think, a crown of fresh daisy heads (along with a couple of other flower head types) was placed around and on the crown of his head to honour him as victor of eternal life.
…for such is the symbolic meaning of crown daisy heads carved in stone on Second Temple period ossuaries, sarcophagi and tomb facades.
… while the TS ‘herringbone’ weave pattern is symbolic of the living waters of the Torah.
Correction and addendum to my #263 comment:
In light of eidomatic (i.e. 3D and digitally squeezed images), botanical and archaeological pieces of evidence, methinks several fresh flower heads, mainly crown daisies (along with other fresh plants?) were placed and pressed on top and both sides of the TS man’s head as a sort of crown or halo to symbolize him as victor of eternal life.
In 2010, on the far end of the left eyebrow arch area, I detected a crown daisy head of which petals had been all plucked out most likely to symbolize terrestrial life’s ephemerity as mere passage. In 1996, Baima-Bollone mistook the petalless crown daisy head for a coin (actually there may be a Pilate coin -simpulum type- stroboscopic bloodied mark on the middle of the left eyebrow arch siding with it).
Reminder: Dr. Petrus Soons produced a holographic 3D image from photographs of the Shroud and found seemingly blocked, “empty” spaces, in which, Avinoam Danin hypothesized that dozens of tiny inflorescences of Anthemis bornmuelleri or Matricaria recutita were placed.
Reminder Two: There are 21 references to the victor’s crown in the New Testament.
Reminder Three: the victor’s crown also appears yet as a laurel wreath with berries, on Pilate’s dilepton coin type reverse.
Sceptics have argued that the flower images are too faint for Danin’s determination to be definite. They are to the sole exception of four crown daisy and one rock rose 3D and digital squeeze images on the Shroud face I could detected or myself processed.
Sorry for the typos.
Floriograpicalling speaking, rock rose’s symbolic meaning is courage.
typo: floriografically speaking
…and crown daisy’s is glory, majesty, npurity, innocence, loyal love,
beauty, patience and simplicity.
As such, the crown daysy can refer to man both as enosh and ha-ben-adam (see Ps 8:4-6).
See also Hebrews 2:7-9.